Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 02:02:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 [876] 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806724 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 11:59:42 PM
 #17501

...
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.

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.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1481248920
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248920

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248920
Reply with quote  #2

1481248920
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481248920
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248920

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248920
Reply with quote  #2

1481248920
Report to moderator
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:01:31 AM
 #17502

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?
That's a very good point, and they still haven't jumped into the fray. Perhaps some old cypherpunks just get tired of fighting the system. Bitcoin needs new blood and sharp minds to build useful tools. I would prefer to see some unity amongst the old vanguard to lead them.


Hal Finney commented on this:

...I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it.

When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction.

I was more positive....

Adam Back, Szabo, and Ray Dillinger (and some others) have all joined the bitcoin community in one way or another in the past year or so. I think Hal was probably spot-on when he noted that "cryptographic graybeards tend to get cynical", and it therefore took the crazy growth that bitcoin had last year to crack that cynicism and cause these guys to get serious about Bitcoin. Ray and Wei Dai have both said that they've been very surprised that Bitcoin took off.

Or maybe most of them had just "moved on to other things".


Regardless, I would indeed prefer if the Blockstream guys personally held a non-trivial quantity of bitcoin. Maybe they do?

Nick Szabo has been into Bitcoin since way back I believe

As far I know, Szabo first publicly wrote about bitcoin in 2011 (or Nov 1st 2008 Wink ), but he didn't really jump in to the community until his twitter presence recently (to my knowledge, anyways).

Here's his commentary from 2011: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2011/05/bitcoin-what-took-ye-so-long.html?m=1

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:04:47 AM
 #17503

...
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.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:09:34 AM
 #17504

i would rather see gvts and orgs like the IMF have to buy BTC to use as reserves.  that would take us to the Moon:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248419

i still see SC's as a way to break Bitcoin's money function by allowing a gvt sponsored currency to siphon BTC to SC w/o having to pay for them.  we need that the price ramps to sustain mining fees and establish Bitcoin as its own global independent currency.  forget asset toys.  as it is, Wall St is the only one who needs or wants those types of toys in the first place with a minority of Americans invested in these things.  even less by foreigners.  what ppl should want and need is Sound Money.  that is what this project is all about, imo.  and the nice thing is anyone who's currently in the Bitcoin system can just sit back, relax, and wait for it to happen.  the price charts still tell me we are destined for greatness.

sorry cypher I'm slow, could you please explain to me how the bolded part is possible?  (serious question)

as i said, imo, the mere insertion of the spvp into the source code throws the whole notion of Bitcoin as Sound Money out the window b/c it allows the separation of the BTC currency unit from its ultra-secure blockchain ledger.  once that's done, all the SC's that have bolted onto Bitcoin can sit back and absorb all the BTC that might be tempted to leave the mainchain.  we also would know that there is a for-profit entity out there (Blockstream) who is in position to influence the continued development of these very SC threats to encourage this dynamic for profit generation.  is there an additional independent way for a gvt sponsored currency to encourage flight to itself?  maybe, use your imagination.  i can think of a few.

thanks for the answer.

so the thing that worry you the most is that once a btc is transferred (locked) something bad could happen (a flaw in the math behind the spvp, an 51% attack on the SC) hence the btc will be stuck in a limbo, am I right?

or do you think that the degree of separation introduced by the sidechain is enough to broke the link (peg) between the btc  tokens (currency) and the hashing power ("commodity"/"gold")?

i think the spvp breaks the sound money function by allowing the delinking of BTC units from the blockchain.  it also encourages the transformation of BTC to speculative SC's that offer assets of all manner (stocks, bonds, etc).  these assets do not represent money and are not liquid.  Bitcoin will no longer be simply money.  it will be a mix of money and assets.  much like a Fidelity or eTrade trading platform.  as a result, i doubt it ever gets treated as its own currency on Forex.  and i doubt it ever gains Sound Money status like gold once had.  THAT is a shame b/c that is what i thought this project was all about.  replacing fiat money with a digital gold standard.

Off-ramps are a reality of Bitcoin and exist already in numerous forms. We absolutely need off-ramps to scale the system and make it possible to reach mainstream adoption. For those of us who understand the implications, it is quite clear that sidechains are potentially the most secure and natural off-ramp possible. It offers the unique chance to preserve the integrity of the ledger and protect the Sound Money aspect of Bitcoin on the protocol level.

so what is wrong with using SC's to incorporate all those assets?  it breaks the Sound Money function.

This comment in itself is so naive and ignorant of our present reality I'm not even sure where to begin... The desire to represent these assets in BTC and the demand for such applications has been crystal clear for everyone who has been paying attention. It is the sole reason why Bitcoin 2.0 projects exist. The problem with most Bitcoin 2.0 projects is that they introduce in the majority of cases an additional third-party that demands an increased level of trust. These third-parties are by all chances, the most dangerous risk to the Sound Money function.

they would have to stay as SC's and i dare say there mere existence destroys Bitcoins liquidity and money function.

What you constantly fail to realize is that if this demand is not fulfilled by SC's it will be through other schemes that are necessarily more dangerous to Bitcoins liquidity and money function.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:11:00 AM
 #17505

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think the probability of the 2-way peg being severed is actually central to the definition of "sidechain" vs. "altcoin," and for practical purposes determines investment behavior in the chain.

On one end of the spectrum, if a sidechain's 2-way peg can be severed at the whim of the sidechain devs, it would essentially be an altcoin and would presumably attract about as much investment as altcoins do (not a threat to Bitcoin).

At the other end of the spectrum, if it's mathematically impossible to sever the 2wp, then it is a true sidechain and the value seems to always remain with the Bitcoin ledger (not a threat to Bitcoin, at least not for this reason).

For cases in between, we cannot really call it a true sidechain, and by the same token we cannot really expect substantial portions of the bitcoin holders to just jump over to the sidechain.

In other words, there's a reasoning error to watch out for here: insofar as the value that could be funneled over to the sidechain relies on the certainty that the 2wp will remain, the concern is self-defeating. If there is any shadow of possibility that the 2wp could be broken, it won't attract that many bitcoins - not much more than any altcoin; and if any sidechain does attract a large portion of the bitcoins, it will only be because the 2wp is as certain of a thing in investors' minds as Bitcoin itself is, which is an extremely high bar.

(This does still leave the possibility that the devs could hamstring Bitcoin deliberately to reduce confidence in Bitcoin to bring it in line with confidence in a not completely solid 2wp so that many people would switch despite some uncertainty. However, this is a much smaller argument to be making.)

Great post as usual, ZB.  I mostly1 agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg.  And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all).  So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic.    

Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose?  The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK.

1I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain.  If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.


We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:12:41 AM
 #17506

...
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 believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:15:46 AM
 #17507

We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.
[/quote]

 Huh

They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense

SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:15:55 AM
 #17508

Redecentralization: building a robust cryptocurrency developer network

https://blog.conformal.com/redecentralization-robust-developer-network/
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:20:10 AM
 #17509

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

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?

Me, zerg, Erdogan, molecular, Peter, ZB, NL, notme, even Adrian.

Anyone who hasn't parrotted the same blatantly false assumptions for the last 200 pages despite being proven wrong multiple time by multiple people.

I am totally uninterested in the respectability of the people behind blockstream, the protocol they invent should be able to stand on its own legs. Even satoshi could be a total jerk for all I care. I depend on his whitepaper and the system as implemented.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
 #17510

We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.

 Huh

They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense

SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it.
[/quote]

i meant a SC running it's own security scheme but connected to MC via spvp.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:23:23 AM
 #17511

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think the probability of the 2-way peg being severed is actually central to the definition of "sidechain" vs. "altcoin," and for practical purposes determines investment behavior in the chain.

On one end of the spectrum, if a sidechain's 2-way peg can be severed at the whim of the sidechain devs, it would essentially be an altcoin and would presumably attract about as much investment as altcoins do (not a threat to Bitcoin).

At the other end of the spectrum, if it's mathematically impossible to sever the 2wp, then it is a true sidechain and the value seems to always remain with the Bitcoin ledger (not a threat to Bitcoin, at least not for this reason).

For cases in between, we cannot really call it a true sidechain, and by the same token we cannot really expect substantial portions of the bitcoin holders to just jump over to the sidechain.

In other words, there's a reasoning error to watch out for here: insofar as the value that could be funneled over to the sidechain relies on the certainty that the 2wp will remain, the concern is self-defeating. If there is any shadow of possibility that the 2wp could be broken, it won't attract that many bitcoins - not much more than any altcoin; and if any sidechain does attract a large portion of the bitcoins, it will only be because the 2wp is as certain of a thing in investors' minds as Bitcoin itself is, which is an extremely high bar.

(This does still leave the possibility that the devs could hamstring Bitcoin deliberately to reduce confidence in Bitcoin to bring it in line with confidence in a not completely solid 2wp so that many people would switch despite some uncertainty. However, this is a much smaller argument to be making.)

Great post as usual, ZB.  I mostly1 agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg.  And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all).  So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic.    

Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose?  The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK.

1I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain.  If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.


We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.
spvp is vaporware created by you. I'll use OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY what is orthogonal to MM.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
 #17512


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.



who's going to pay you to clone it and make a SC for it when no one from the Bitcoin community will use your SC since FantastiCOIN may be attractive to speculators precisely b/c it provides inflation?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:37:13 AM
 #17513


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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
 #17514


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.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
 #17515


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.
amen
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 12:56:08 AM
 #17516

What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".

Also, are we not assuming this sidechain is controlled by the government or else who exactly do this war time money go to? If so why should I trust government sidechain more than traditional government. They could just as easily change the rules after the fact.

And of course I would prefer to hold Bitcoin. I'm not the type of person who willingly fund war and consciously inflate the value of my holdings

By "made the law" it means it isn't voluntary.  Usually this works through both moral suasion, and force.  
No one in your country will accept your bitcoin or else they may be called a traitor.
People that you know have lost family members, your friends or your children are going off to fight to defend your home.
The authorities have let it be known that this is the only way you and your way of life will survive, and if you lose the battle you will be killed or enslaved because you have the wrong type hair/eyes/language whatever.

This sort of circumstance is the one regions typically find themselves in when there is a central bank scheme brewing up (or when one becomes abolished).
By not trading in your bitcoin for gov.inflation.coin you won't be able to spend them, and if your government wins the war, you have to hope then never discover your deceit for the rest of your days.  If they lose, and you survive, it is a different set of challenges.

It is easy to say what one might or might not do when not in the circumstance, but this method has been very successful throughout history on both wars of aggression and of defense for establishing central banks.

Paper money was innovated by the Huns... and so they conquered Asia.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:11:05 AM
 #17517

...
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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:14:12 AM
 #17518


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

Quote
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

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:17:20 AM
 #17519

...
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!

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 01:32:10 AM
 #17520

I am not a fan of Gavin's current Max Blocksize proposal.  

I've been following your scalability proposal in the Technical Discussion section.  You want to see the max block size adjusted based on blockchain feedback (closed loop), whereas Gavin proposes an open-loop solution.  One risk with Gavin's solution is that it assumes historical growth rates for internet bandwidth will continue moving forward in time.  One risk with your proposal is that it introduces another feedback term into what is surely a nonlinear system (right now the only feedback term is Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment).  

By the way, has anyone heard from DeathAndTaxes?  I'd love to hear his view on both sidechains and scalability.  

me too.

I've just checked his profile and his last login was on October 7th, last post on 29 of August...

D&T is struggling with banks with his exchange type company, not surprising that he is pretty busy.

On the MBS proposal topic.

The solutions I suggest for the scalability issue based on the Max_blocksize is more a hybrid of the two.

There are at least two problems with Gavin's proposal that are resolved very simply with mine.
1) What if the open-loop solution is too big and knocks lots of nodes off the network increasing centralization.
2) How do we know when the next time we need some central money planning decision authority to suggest a new target MAX_BLOCKSIZE?

Simply stated: We use a factor of the recent blocksize with adjustment restrictions to prevent burst abuse conditions (TX spam, etc) -the closed loop, and use an upper limit of the exponential solution -the open loop.
When they converge, then we know that it is time for whomever is the new consensus builder to propose something different (or to recognize that there is some other problem needing attention).

What this does (among other things) is it avoids the potential condition where we have solved scalability in other ways (such as side chains or something else) and typical block sizes are still in the 1-2MB range (decades from now) and the network of that time is more or less built around this expectation, lots of hobbyists, and we have very good resilience.
Then suddenly we get a bunch of 1GB blocks (because it is under the limit of the protocol) but folks aren't expecting it and we lose 7/8 of the nodes then running to this bandwidth attack.
Our children will look back at us and think we were idiots for not preventing this sort of thing when we had the chance.

Worse case scenario, it is only as bad as Gavin's proposal.
Best case scenario, we have a more effective backstop to prevent protocol abuse and encourage node running.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Pages: « 1 ... 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 [876] 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!