Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2017, 12:02:59 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1941543 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:48:23 AM
 #17501


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

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.



1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
1501329779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501329779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501329779
Reply with quote  #2

1501329779
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:54:53 AM
 #17502

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.


"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:58:01 AM
 #17503

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?

http://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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 02:00:00 AM
 #17504

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.

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: 1358



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:03:01 AM
 #17505


I just let by balder go,  Shocked

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

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

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:06:04 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 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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:13:14 AM
 #17507

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:30:34 AM
 #17508

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

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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:47:32 AM
 #17509

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?

http://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.

"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, 02:52:53 AM
 #17510

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 02:58:47 AM
 #17511

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

"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, 03:23:46 AM
 #17512

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
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 03:35:39 AM
 #17513

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?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 03:42:12 AM
 #17514

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

"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, 03:46:12 AM
 #17515

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 04:28:36 AM
 #17516

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
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 04:56:20 AM
 #17517

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.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:17:46 AM
 #17518

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.

no one's crying.  it's about having enough self awareness as a community to understand that letting a bunch of insiders who control a disproportionate amount of access to the source code shouldn't be proposing a source code change that specifically is designed to benefit themselves and their for profit company they have been found to set up last February.  no wonder there hasn't been any progress on the Bitcoin code.  how do you think all those other companies or altcoins feel that have spent millions in money and time designing processes to compete head to head with Bitcoin w/o the insider advantage of Blockstream?  how do you think the outside financial world will look at this?  the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.  i for one, think they have the possibility to abuse this retained position to block other promising innovations that come along in the future that might obsolete SC's.  if they really believe in their product  they should have no problem stepping down.  or if they want to stick around, reorg as a non profit.  i think it's the right thing to do.  and then we as a community don't have to worry about this ethical conflict.

Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  if we want ppls of all nations and social strata to buy in we cannot afford to let Bitcoin appear to have any improprieties or be subject to any vested interests like Blockstream.  we don't need or want a Redhat for Bitcoin as Money.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:30:02 AM
 #17519

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.

I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind.

The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years.

You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ?

Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them?

For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world.

Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source.

Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich.

As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs".

They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core.

Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency.

Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream.

These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors."

In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind.

I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model.

What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary.

By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations.

SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way.

Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy.

Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best.

If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency.

No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC).




"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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:31:31 AM
 #17520

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.

no one's crying.  it's about having enough self awareness as a community to understand that letting a bunch of insiders who control a disproportionate amount of access to the source code shouldn't be proposing a source code change that specifically is designed to benefit themselves and their for profit company they have been found to set up last February.  no wonder there hasn't been any progress on the Bitcoin code.  how do you think all those other companies or altcoins feel that have spent millions in money and time designing processes to compete head to head with Bitcoin w/o the insider advantage of Blockstream?  how do you think the outside financial world will look at this?  the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.  i for one, think they have the possibility to abuse this retained position to block other promising innovations that come along in the future that might obsolete SC's.  if they really believe in their product  they should have no problem stepping down.  or if they want to stick around, reorg as a non profit.  i think it's the right thing to do.  and then we as a community don't have to worry about this ethical conflict.

Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  if we want ppls of all nations and social strata to buy in we cannot afford to let Bitcoin appear to have any improprieties or be subject to any vested interests like Blockstream.  we don't need or want a Redhat for Bitcoin as Money.
This is war. All is fair, mate. Pick your side and call to arms.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
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 ... 1558 »
  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!