Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2017, 07:09:54 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1981449 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:12:40 PM
 #17781

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).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

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.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

and who's looking to capitalize on SC's?  oh, you!:


Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!
1506366594
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506366594

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506366594
Reply with quote  #2

1506366594
Report to moderator
1506366594
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506366594

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506366594
Reply with quote  #2

1506366594
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506366594
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506366594

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506366594
Reply with quote  #2

1506366594
Report to moderator
1506366594
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506366594

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506366594
Reply with quote  #2

1506366594
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:18:56 PM
 #17782

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).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

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.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:24:34 PM
 #17783

Looks like Juan Llanos of BitReserve is losing sight of things: https://bitreserve.org/en/blog/posts/about-bitreserve/with-your-right-hand-on-your-heart-a-recap-of-money20-20-2014 Shame...

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:26:46 PM
 #17784

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).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

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.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:28:55 PM
 #17785

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).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
Quote

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.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?



it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

they are

"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, 10:32:05 PM
 #17786

here's the part i would focus on.  it shows i've had problems with SC's from the beginning.  it didn't start with Blockstream:


it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:32:11 PM
 #17787


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:37:06 PM
 #17788


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 Cheesy

this is too good.

"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, 10:39:00 PM
 #17789


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:44:27 PM
 #17790


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

"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, 10:51:52 PM
 #17791


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 Cheesy

this is too good.

the only thing too much here is your desperation to character assassinate.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:52:45 PM
 #17792


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:55:01 PM
 #17793


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

it seems to me if you make a spin-off that expanded the moneyless 2x with no innovation it'll be deleted in minus and the money supply will balance out at 1x. 2 seconds later.

if it survives, its market cap will be the values the free market gives the innovation. the two market caps combined create a greater whole.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 10:58:12 PM
 #17794


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:02:28 PM
 #17795

Adrian-x, how much are your losses ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:02:38 PM
 #17796


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD

WTF is wrong with you?  accusing me of scamming?  making stuff up now?

you're a dick. 
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:04:16 PM
 #17797


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD

WTF is wrong with you?  accusing me of scamming?  making stuff up now?

you're a dick.  
yep,  I'm stupid idiot going mad ... simply dick

Edit:
 and your scamming business will be evaporating soon. => good for bitcoin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:05:40 PM
 #17798


oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.
spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD

WTF is wrong with you?  accusing me of scamming?  making stuff up now?

you're a dick. 
yep,  I'm stupid idiot going mad ... simply dick

i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior.  wow.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:11:15 PM
 #17799

i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior.  wow.

This is THE END, of your alt-coin scam. SC will not allow pump/dump scheme anymore.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 20, 2014, 11:14:14 PM
 #17800

i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior.  wow.

This is THE END, of your alt-coin scam. SC will not allow pump/dump scheme anymore.

what are you talking about?  better stop smokin that stuff...
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 ... 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!