Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 02:15:57 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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] 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:42:30 PM
 #17741

...
Maybe you are right and the whole thing was a pump-n-dump.  If so, I'm glad I dumped some already because there is every possibility that many people will be enthusiastic enough about a 'real' Bitcoin to get one going once the original has proven to be a hoax from the get-go.


Nice try, but that's not what I said. Bitcoin can survive, be useful, remain significantly better than the legacy financial system, and be valuable without your idealistic and unrealistic notion of "decentralization"; ie, the blocksize can be raised (at least up to some conservative interpretation of Nielsen's law) without killing bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
1513390557
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513390557

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513390557
Reply with quote  #2

1513390557
Report to moderator
1513390557
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513390557

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513390557
Reply with quote  #2

1513390557
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513390557
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513390557

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513390557
Reply with quote  #2

1513390557
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:44:24 PM
 #17742

Are you mainly saying that the incentive structures for mining change in unpredictable ways if speculative assets are built straight into the money itself, rather than those assets simply being denominated in the money, like how the DOW is denominated in dollars? If that's what you're saying, I might agree. I'm not sure I see any problem with the incentives, but I also can't rule out a problem. The precautionary principle. This would extend to things like Counterparty, yes?

Wait, I'm pretty sure you said before that it's fine for things to be built on top of Bitcoin. So I'm confused about whether your argument here is just an extension of your "Bitcoin will only ever be used as money" thesis or whether it's specific to sidechains due to merge mining or for some other reason.

yes, that's what i'm saying. the danger being that of building speculative asset trading directly into the protocol facilitated by a conflicted spvp.  i think it deprecates the money function we currently enjoy and introduces unacceptable risk.  and it certainly hasn't been proven to work.

and i am fine with things being built on top of Bitcoin as long as they bring value and compete fairly.

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:46:27 PM
 #17743

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

But spin-off create a different ledger no?

Once transactions occur on the spun-off chain they don't consolidate on the other chain

"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 20, 2014, 06:49:29 PM
 #17744

Are you mainly saying that the incentive structures for mining change in unpredictable ways if speculative assets are built straight into the money itself, rather than those assets simply being denominated in the money, like how the DOW is denominated in dollars? If that's what you're saying, I might agree. I'm not sure I see any problem with the incentives, but I also can't rule out a problem. The precautionary principle. This would extend to things like Counterparty, yes?

Wait, I'm pretty sure you said before that it's fine for things to be built on top of Bitcoin. So I'm confused about whether your argument here is just an extension of your "Bitcoin will only ever be used as money" thesis or whether it's specific to sidechains due to merge mining or for some other reason.

yes, that's what i'm saying. the danger being that of building speculative asset trading directly into the protocol facilitated by a conflicted spvp.  i think it deprecates the money function we currently enjoy and introduces unacceptable risk.  and it certainly hasn't been proven to work.

and i am fine with things being built on top of Bitcoin as long as they bring value and compete fairly.

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:50:38 PM
 #17745

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

now you're rolling. Wink

this is why i call it dilutional to Bitcoins current core function and value; that of money.

not only that, a SC for stock would introduce a time preference demand into the equation.  whereas BTC currency is supposed to be highly liquid and hold value, a stock is a long term investment and introduces risk which negates Bitcoins money function in aggregate.  i would argue that the non US world could care less about Bitcoin as a vehicle to invest in stocks, bonds, etc.  they only care about the SOV money function.  Americans only care about this too for the most part if you look at the stats (relatively low participation).

if we start diverting our attention away from the core problem for which Satoshi built Bitcoin, that as money, it just becomes another WoW trading platform game.

these things are gonna happen whether or not SPVP is introduced

Quote
SPVproof is a different trust model for this mechanism and the fact that is it embedded in the protocol makes it potentially more secure and trustable. Yes federated models sit on top of the protocol but the separation is the same, only the way by which these units interoperate with the mainchain is different.

"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
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 06:52:54 PM
 #17746

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

But spin-off create a different ledger no?

Once transactions occur on the spun-off chain they don't consolidate on the other chain

Yeah, that's true, but as a hodler you can just hodl even if others choose to transact. To participate in transactions (i.e., to alter your percentage of the ledger) on any spin-off is opt-in, rather than opt-out.

Suppose I hold X% of all the BTC now. If I never spend on, say, a Monero spin-off of Bitcoin using a snapshot of the Bitcoin ledger today, my stake remains X% in perpetuity. If the Monero spin-off one day takes over, I still control X% of it no matter what other holders have done, so my position in "the ledger" (what is currently known as "the Bitcoin ledger") is preserved by default even if I was frozen in ice the whole time.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:01:34 PM
 #17747

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

But spin-off create a different ledger no?

Once transactions occur on the spun-off chain they don't consolidate on the other chain

Yeah, that's true, but as a hodler you can just hodl even if others choose to transact. To participate in transactions (i.e., to alter your percentage of the ledger) on any spin-off is opt-in, rather than opt-out.

Suppose I hold X% of all the BTC now. If I never spend on, say, a Monero spin-off of Bitcoin using a snapshot of Bitcoin ledger today, my stake remains X% in perpetuity. If the Monero spin-off one day takes over, I still control X% of it no matter what other holders have done, so my position in "the ledger" (what is currently known as "the Bitcoin ledger") is preserved by default even if was frozen in ice the whole time.

Yes but then you create two competing chains that work against each others network effect.

It is also different from sidechains because then you have to decide whether or not to use the feature of, say, your Monero spin-off.

As you have mentioned above, you can't benefit from your wealth unless you spend it. The point of sidechains is not only to ensure your stake in the ledger but to be able to use it in different ways that are not possible on the mainchain.

"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: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:02:52 PM
 #17748


The first notion I agree with.

The second is irrelevant to the notion you are defending : that sidechains seperate the BTC unit from its blockchain. SPVproof is a different trust model for this mechanism and the fact that is it embedded in the protocol makes it potentially more secure and trustable. Yes federated models sit on top of the protocol by the separation is the same, only the way by which these units interoperate with the mainchain is different.

It's simple, you trust the distributed ledger more than the entities that hold your money, you see it as an additional layer of security for the money. I see the incentives that secure the distributed ledger as a security risk and a change to those incentives is changes the security.

I believe on every level that the existing incentive will preserve the existing distributed ledger, I see SPVP injected into the Bitcoin Protocol as a means to secure other ledgers, or have the Bitcoin ledger secured by other means, this adjustment in incentives if manipulated, and over time would have devastating disruption to the incentive that secure the main Bitcoin blockchain.

It's all about the trust you want to marginalize it I want people to take risks, the one risk I we need to mitigate is trusting money. I believe cypher is correct that in order to succeed the only thing you need in society is trust less money, all other relationships depend on that one thing.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:03:36 PM
 #17749

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:05:29 PM
 #17750


The first notion I agree with.

The second is irrelevant to the notion you are defending : that sidechains seperate the BTC unit from its blockchain. SPVproof is a different trust model for this mechanism and the fact that is it embedded in the protocol makes it potentially more secure and trustable. Yes federated models sit on top of the protocol by the separation is the same, only the way by which these units interoperate with the mainchain is different.

its not irrelevant, if it was, there would be no need to inject SPVproof into the Bitcoin protocol.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:13:23 PM
 #17751

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?

i dont know how Counterparty works, but I'd be interested to know?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:14:14 PM
 #17752

Yes but then you create two competing chains that work against each others network effect.

It is also different from sidechains because then you have to decide whether or not to use the feature of, say, your Monero spin-off.

The competing network effects may be a drawback, but not that much compared to the peace of mind of knowing your wealth is secure no matter which platform wins.

As you have mentioned above, you can't benefit from your wealth unless you spend it. The point of sidechains is not only to ensure your stake in the ledger but to be able to use it in different ways that are not possible on the mainchain.

Right, but the simple act of converting your stake into a house, bars of gold, cars, etc. doesn't require any special functionality beyond what Bitcoin already is.

The store of value function is surprisingly way more valuable than anything else, like by an order of magnitude (consider total world gold value). It's not just another way to use money.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
 #17753

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?

I adressed this notion here, not sure if you saw it.

From my point of view. SPVP Sidechains that enable merged-mining are in fact bringing balance to this issue of transaction fees emigrating to different, off-chain schemes.

So far the only option to accomodate transactions types that are not implementable in the mainchain had been these off-chain schemes that effectively present this very danger of moving transactions off-chain and out of reach of potentially underfunded miners.

SPVP Sidechains will not negate this aspect but they introduce an alternative for the market. The likely outcome is that any chain that gain significant adoption from the market and therefore require the "ultimate" security model will be picked up by miners and that way these transactions will not "escape" them.

This is why I argue that lost incentives to off-chain schemes might be potentially more dangerous than a change to the incentive model (Adrian's concern)

"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 20, 2014, 07:18:30 PM
 #17754

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?

back up a step.  miners get paid to insert those CP records into satoshi tx's in the first place which incentivizes mining growth and thus more security and thus less chance for subsequent attack on those same satoshi tx's.  now move all these CP tx fees off to a SC that can't be MM'd.  this deprecates the MC.  and there will be thousands of these insecure SC's as i think only a few SC's will be MM'd due to mining capacity constraints.

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:21:28 PM
 #17755

I believe cypher is correct that in order to succeed the only think you need in society is trust less money, all other relationships depend on that one thing.  

yes, if we solve the money problem, we solve everything.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:28:21 PM
 #17756

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?

I adressed this notion here, not sure if you saw it.

From my point of view. SPVP Sidechains that enable merged-mining are in fact bringing balance to this issue of transaction fees emigrating to different, off-chain schemes.

So far the only option to accomodate transactions types that are not implementable in the mainchain had been these off-chain schemes that effectively present this very danger of moving transactions off-chain and out of reach of potentially underfunded miners.

SPVP Sidechains will not negate this aspect but they introduce an alternative for the market. The likely outcome is that any chain that gain significant adoption from the market and therefore require the "ultimate" security model will be picked up by miners and that way these transactions will not "escape" them.

This is why I argue that lost incentives to off-chain schemes might be potentially more dangerous than a change to the incentive model (Adrian's concern)

I tend to think Bitcoin will eventually be forced to change its method of paying miners (either through increased inflation or higher tx fees), as detailed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9458351#msg9458351

Since that's far in the future, though, I'm not in a rush. The nature of sounding the alarm about "danger on the horizon" is that sometimes the alarm is itself the greater source of danger. I worry that the current popularity of sidechains is partly a reaction to the price decline and fears about altcoins, scalability, etc. If we worry so much about such things and then mess with the core protocol, the cure might be worse than the disease, especially if the disease was really just a phantom. This dynamic goes on in many aspects of Bitcoin, which may be why the devs are usually pretty conservative. However, that conservatism itself has been seen as a danger, so...
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 20, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
 #17757

I have referred to this situation as the ledger being distributed on multiple chains instead of sitting on a single one.

This notion has potentially positive implications for the preservation of the ledger : a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

This probably isn't the point you were trying to make here.
You should realize that this single point of failure issue is compounded rather than being resolved by side chains.  
Each SPV link creates an additional failure point in that model, each of them being only as secure as the weakest predecessor.

(If MC fails, SC1 fails to the degree that SC1 value is derived from MC and etc.)

I'm a fan of side chains.  I love the potential it offers.  I'm also a fan of Blockstream.  These are heroes of the first order.

Quote from: Joseph Cambell
A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder.
Fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won.
The hero comes back from this adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fel­low man.

However to succeed, against some of the most powerful adversaries that we know of, the challenges are not small ones.  
The victory is not pre-ordained.  If we do not look for the pitfalls, and only look at the beautiful horizons, we will end up in the pit... with spikes through our necks.

Recognizing and examining the problems is part of what makes the adventure more likely to succeed.  It also helps folks to see what this can do.

...
"The Ledger" in this context is a marketing term so I don't know if it refers to everything on any block chain anywhere, or the just Bitcoin block chain, or Bitcoin plus SCs (so long as the SPV is working), but then it becomes two ledgers if it stops working, or a chain dies...  
It can mean whatever you want it to mean, but that just makes the term meaningless for anyone else.

Side chains do present a clear and present danger for Bitcoin.  They also offer some extremely powerful advantages, but we can't hope to get any of those without dealing with the dangers.  There are just too many pits, and we should recognize that not everyone wants to see either Bitcoin or Side Chains succeed.

Like Adrian-s and cypherdoc, I do not think we NEED side chains for Bitcoin to succeed, so I like a cautious approach.  It is more important to do it right, than it is to do it.

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
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:37:42 PM
 #17758

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:38:00 PM
 #17759

Yes but then you create two competing chains that work against each others network effect.

It is also different from sidechains because then you have to decide whether or not to use the feature of, say, your Monero spin-off.

The competing network effects may be a drawback, but not that much compared to the peace of mind of knowing your wealth is secure no matter which platform wins.

As you have mentioned above, you can't benefit from your wealth unless you spend it. The point of sidechains is not only to ensure your stake in the ledger but to be able to use it in different ways that are not possible on the mainchain.

Right, but the simple act of converting your stake into a house, bars of gold, cars, etc. doesn't require any special functionality beyond what Bitcoin already is.

The store of value function is surprisingly way more valuable than anything else, like by an order of magnitude (consider total world gold value). It's not just another way to use money.

There is no peace of mind in a reality where there are multiple competing ledgers.

Replacing the trust anywhere there is currently counter-party or third-party intervention is invaluable IMO.

Yes it may be so that money is the most pressing issue in that concern but it does not address ALL trust relations. Bitcoin provides the chance to create an immutable historical record of EVERYTHING. Some use cases go way beyond financial aspects.

"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 07:45:14 PM
 #17760

I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)?

Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general?

I adressed this notion here, not sure if you saw it.

From my point of view. SPVP Sidechains that enable merged-mining are in fact bringing balance to this issue of transaction fees emigrating to different, off-chain schemes.

So far the only option to accomodate transactions types that are not implementable in the mainchain had been these off-chain schemes that effectively present this very danger of moving transactions off-chain and out of reach of potentially underfunded miners.

SPVP Sidechains will not negate this aspect but they introduce an alternative for the market. The likely outcome is that any chain that gain significant adoption from the market and therefore require the "ultimate" security model will be picked up by miners and that way these transactions will not "escape" them.

This is why I argue that lost incentives to off-chain schemes might be potentially more dangerous than a change to the incentive model (Adrian's concern)

I tend to think Bitcoin will eventually be forced to change its method of paying miners (either through increased inflation or higher tx fees), as detailed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9458351#msg9458351

Since that's far in the future, though, I'm not in a rush. The nature of sounding the alarm about "danger on the horizon" is that sometimes the alarm is itself the greater source of danger. I worry that the current popularity of sidechains is partly a reaction to the price decline and fears about altcoins, scalability, etc. If we worry so much about such things and then mess with the core protocol, the cure might be worse than the disease, especially if the disease was really just a phantom. This dynamic goes on in many aspects of Bitcoin, which may be why the devs are usually pretty conservative. However, that conservatism itself has been seen as a danger, so...

Fair enough, and my interest in sidechains were certainly not born from any reaction to price, altcoins, or scalability.

As for the post you refer to, I have previously expressed  my disagreement with the idea behind it

Quote
This is because successful sidechains would allow Bitcoin transactions to be disconnected from Bitcoin miners.

From where I stand the situation is exactly the opposite. Successful sidechains would enable Bitcoin miners to claim transactions fees that otherwise would be "hijacked" by off-chain schemes.

And if it so, would you not consider sidechains as a potentially viable solution to the problem you suggest (compared to inflation or higher tx fees)

"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 ... 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!