Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

[1714301838]

1714301838

[1714301838]

1714301838

[1714301838]

1714301838

[Adrian-x]

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...

Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment.

I hope that's right.

For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.

You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect.

* "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.

There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating.

May the best coin win!

we are the minority. I just what you to consider the consequences when the majority bolt on SC professionalCOIN. NewLiberty took it up a notch https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9587151#msg9587151 I was a little limited in my thinking, considering we'd always have peace.

I like the Bitcoin that can Stop war, the idea it can be used to fund it should be flushed out a little not dismissed.

Actually its quite fun to do i think if you are a paid professional digital influence you should learn about the Six Thinking Hats check out the link.  

we are doing the black hat stage at the moment, but your defending yellow hat ideas, your approach is very destructive.

[NewLiberty]

BTW, this is the DAILY TX volume.

[Erdogan]

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

But, note that on a Universal Exchange, the barriers to trading in-kind fall dramatically.  On a Universal Exchange I could just as easily swap stock for a car as I could stock for stock.  Or real estate for stock as easily real estate for real estate.  On a Universal Exchange, everything becomes readily tradable with everything else!

Bitcoins thus have value as a method for avoiding or diminishing the need for trust, and the expensive infrastructure built up to instill it, and not merely a collectible or as money.  Trust is valuable, and few things are more demonstrably trustworthy than a public blockchain.

...

In short, a Universal Exchange will facilitate a barter economy like the world has never seen.  For the first time, barter transactions will be nearly as easy as cash transactions (and in many cases even easier).  This will have a great many revolutionary impacts.  It will impact "trusted" third parties the most and soonest, but it will also impact governments, human relationships, law, accounting, economics, and a great many other fields.  And, perhaps most of all, it may just eventually make the whole concept of "money" unnecessary and obsolete.  With a Universal Exchange, a common currency, in the traditional sense of the word, isn't hardly necessary.

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html

Total misunderstanding. If you implement the universal exchange, you still need money to hold value between transactions. You could hold something else, but in that case, what you and others would prefer to hold, would become the money. The stuff that has the best money qualities. Include bitcoin, which is the best money, in the bucket of goods traded, and you are good to go.

[brg444]

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.

[Adrian-x]

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

https://i.imgur.com/TFahTPe.png

they are the same proposition.

if you read the original link, you would be able to infer that sound money, Bitcoin as you know it is the only way to achieve Universal Exchange.
The author has painted a picture where your bitcoins are invisible, the idea is more like an Austrian barter Zeitgeist Universal exchange run on sound money.

and yes SC are a threat to that vision.

[NewLiberty]

it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.

Yes, we want a good medium of exchange.  The more universal the better.
We also want a good store of value, and unit of account.
Basic stuff.
Most of cypherdocs issues with SC are in the SoV area.

[Adrian-x]

BTW, this is the DAILY TX volume.

I just let by balder go,  

most of it is hot air, we should be looking at real GDP

[Erdogan]

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...

Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment.

I hope that's right.

For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.

You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect.

* "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.

There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating.

May the best coin win!

we are the minority. I just what you to consider the consequences when the majority bolt on SC professionalCOIN. NewLiberty took it up a notch https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9587151#msg9587151 I was a little limited in my thinking, considering we'd always have peace.

I like the Bitcoin that can Stop war, the idea it can be used to fund it should be flushed out a little not dismissed.

Actually its quite fun to do i think if you are a paid professional digital influence you should learn about the Six Thinking Hats check out the link.  

we are doing the black hat stage at the moment, but your defending yellow hat ideas, your approach is very destructive.

Don't fear the inflatacoins. With silver and gold, there were equivalence in a silver money and a paper money at some point. As paper proliferated, fiat laws tried to implement the "a mark is a mark is a mark" meme. You can say people didn't care enough, but mostly they accepted the paper because it was better money. With bitcoin that will not work. It is not possible to construct a better money, because bitcoin can assume any quality from an altcoin that is in fact better. If necessary. In some far future. Nothing currently available can compete.

[cypherdoc]

it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.

no, it's you who don't understand.  just a superficial scan of the blog makes it clear that the author is talking about the Bitcoin blockchain as his Universal Exchange.  somehow, he seems to relegate the BTC units to a minor category, if i'm not mistaken, which would be wrong.  it's the BTC unit plus the blockchain, or the inextricable link btwn the 2 that i'm trying to ram into your peabrain, that is important.  the 2 combined are what constitute Bitcoin as Sound Money.  splitting these 2 via your spvp gimmick will destroy Bitcoin as Money.

that is the functionality we need to be promoting, not all this SC bullshit which will relegate us to the "Bitcoin Trading Platform Game".  we want all outsiders to have to buy in to BTC with cold hard cash which will drive us to the Moon.

[Adrian-x]

it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.

no, it's you who don't understand.  just a superficial scan of the blog makes it clear that the author is talking about the Bitcoin blockchain as his Universal Exchange.  somehow, he seems to relegate the BTC units to a minor category, if i'm not mistaken, which would be wrong.  it's the BTC unit plus the blockchain, or the inextricable link btwn the 2 that i'm trying to ram into your peabrain, that is important.  the 2 combined are what constitute Bitcoin as Sound Money.  splitting these 2 via your spvp gimmick will destroy Bitcoin as Money.

that is the functionality we need to be promoting, not all this SC bullshit which will relegate us to the "Bitcoin Trading Platform Game".  we want all outsiders to have to buy in to BTC with cold hard cash which will drive us to the Moon.

+1

[brg444]

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

https://i.imgur.com/TFahTPe.png

they are the same proposition.

if you read the original link, you would be able to infer that sound money, Bitcoin as you know it is the only way to achieve Universal Exchange.
The author has painted a picture where your bitcoins are invisible, the idea is more like an Austrian barter Zeitgeist Universal exchange run on sound money.

and yes SC are a threat to that vision.

How so? It seems to me they are exactly what we need to realise it.

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

[cypherdoc]

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

[brg444]

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear.

There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment.

SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly

[cypherdoc]

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear.

There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment.

SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly

but you can't stop all stupid ppl like Odalv from doing stupid things.  better to let them lose money on those federated servers.

don't want to pollute the protocol with spvp and institutionalize stupidity.

[cbeast]

I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them.

Examples:

1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.

What am I missing?

[brg444]

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear.

There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment.

SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly

but you can't stop all stupid ppl like Odalv from doing stupid things.  better to let them lose money on those federated servers.

don't want to pollute the protocol with spvp and institutionalize stupidity.

Odalv sounds pretty smart if you ask me.

It is not pollution it is balance. Stupid people already have plenty of schemes they can use. SPVP does little to improve their scam ambitions.

On the other hand, SPVP allows for arguably the most secure use of BTC outside the mainchain that is technically possible

[cypherdoc]

I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them.

Examples:

1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.

What am I missing?

you're missing the other half of this argument.

that being, the ppl proposing the spvp happen to compose 40% of core dev + 3 of the top committers, all of whom have gotten together and raised $21M in cash to form a for-profit company called Blockstream.  these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation. crucial to their success is inserting a spvp into the source code specifically to facilitate their business model.  now, when you try to explain what Bitcoin is, you can no longer say that Bitcoin is a form of digital cash.  you'll have to say it's a trading platform that offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, and oh currency.  kinda like WoW.  but maybe not quite as good. Blockstream will want to see these SC's become successful as a happy customer is a happy payor and thus becomes a profit center which can refer more and more clients to build more SC's.  this is their job.  they will make $millions/billions.

[cypherdoc]

hey, looky here.  thanks to brg444, i've catapulted past D&T to #2 poster here on the forum.  thanks brg444!  take me to #1!

[cbeast]

I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them.

Examples:

1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.

What am I missing?

you're missing the other half of this argument.

that being, the ppl proposing the spvp happen to compose 40% of core dev + 3 of the top committers, all of whom have gotten together and raised $21M in cash to form a for-profit company called Blockstream.  these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation. crucial to their success is inserting a spvp into the source code specifically to facilitate their business model.  now, when you try to explain what Bitcoin is, you can no longer say that Bitcoin is a form of digital cash.  you'll have to say it's a trading platform that offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, and oh currency.  kinda like WoW.  but maybe not quite as good. Blockstream will want to see these SC's become successful as a happy customer is a happy payor and thus becomes a profit center which can refer more and more clients to build more SC's.  this is their job.  they will make $millions/billions.

Sorry, I don't see a problem as long as the Bitcoin protocol still works. If they eventually abandon Bitcoin for their own altcoin, then competition may overtake them. Maybe they will succeed, but crying won't stop them. If they are smart enough to be innovative, then they will be smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel. All the stuff about using Bitcoin for trading is a good thing. Rich people usually listen to smart people. Proof of Work will survive on its own merit.