Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us. 

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

[1714260892]

1714260892

[1714260892]

1714260892

[NewLiberty]

@NL - i take your point. I often see them as interchangable even though I know they aren't. I also didn't distinguish between currency war and financial war - I was thinking that CB's fight the currency war and governments the financial. Bitcoin could be used to stymie the effects of financial war, no?

You are right there 100%.
So long as people are willing to trade away their bitcoin for CB money, the CB's have a shot at getting in on it too.

One of my favorite paper currencies was Netherland's gilders.
http://www.leftovercurrency.com/banknotes/netherlands/dutch-guilders.php
One of the more beautiful and functional fiat paper money sets is gone now, replaced by the more prosaic Euro.  
The Netherlands remains a country.

The future is uncertain, maybe the Gilder or something even better will return someday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/dutch-had-back-up-plan-to-reintroduce-guilder-dijsselbloem-says.html

[lebing]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

[brg444]

seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?

The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.

While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?

If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.

You have one piece of work.  If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS.  In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree.  To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.

In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal.  You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility.  We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.

Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree.  That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks.  This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain.  This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination.  Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel.  They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once.  A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work.  Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.

And Odalv comes through with the backbreaker once again 

That is a fantastic insight from Satoshi on MM and quite interesting that he had coined the term "sidechains" already. Thank you for pulling this up

[BldSwtTrs]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

We don't need sidechains to integrate 2.0 features on BTC, look at what Counterparty is doing.

[cypherdoc]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

This is just not true.

That altcoin would have to start with a price of 0 and with a network size of 0. the Bitcoin network will spot any innovation that altcoin might bring and automatically incorporate it out of self protection being open source. Any investors that buy that altcoin will likely lose money just like we've seen with all altcoins today. The network effect of money should insure the fiat money flow will preferentially continue to be directed towards Bitcoin.

MySpace is a terrible example because those social media sites do not involve the network of money which Bitcoin, in its current form, it's set to disrupt everything fiat.

 We just need to keep our eye on the ball.

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us. 

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

[cypherdoc]

The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should  occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves  itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
 

Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors.

I disagree. And I'm probably the first VC that ran to Bitcoin in a significant way so you need to understand what I saw at such an early stage. For me it was totally about SOV and a replacement for Gold. That is what this thread is all about and is why it is so popular precisely because people have been agreeing with me more and more as the years are going by.

Sure, the payment network is icing on the cake but it remains to be seen just how good that part will be. But it's the SOV that has boot strapped Bitcoin to where it is and is what will take it to the moon. And we need the moon to sustain mining fees on MC. 

I agree with this. The gold-like SOV is absolutely what drove speculation and adoption of Bitcoin.

Serious or facetious?

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.  

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen.    lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin,  go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

[brg444]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

I disagree. Bitcoin functions nearly perfectly as money and that is all the network effect that you need. Its only possible shortcomings in that function are privacy (lack of user-defined anonymity) and transfer time.

Aside from these, Bitcoin works as advertised and it is extremely unlikely that another coin comes and significantly improves on Bitcoin's money function. As cypher mentioned, any other functionality is "icing on the cake" and none of these "turing complete" proposal is strong enough to distract Bitcoin's network effect.

Also, you cannot compare the network effect of a social network to a money protocol. The combination of the money network effect and the protocol network effect creates arguably the strongest network effect observable in our human environment. There was no financial consequence to users switching from Myspace to Facebook, the same cannot be said from a potential "switch" in currency/SOV.

[cypherdoc]

Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

I disagree. Bitcoin functions nearly perfectly as money and that is all the network effect that you need. Its only possible shortcomings in that function are privacy (lack of user-defined anonymity) and transfer time.

Aside from these, Bitcoin works as advertised and it is extremely unlikely that another coin comes and significantly improves on Bitcoin's money function. As cypher mentioned, any other functionality is "icing on the cake" and none of these "turing complete" proposal is strong enough to distract Bitcoin's network effect.

Also, you cannot compare the network effect of a social network to a money protocol. The combination of the money network effect and the protocol network effect creates arguably the strongest network effect observable in our human environment. There was no financial consequence to users switching from Myspace to Facebook, the same cannot be said from a potential "switch" in currency/SOV.

brg444 + cypher:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uiVrPsY8xIs

[brg444]

The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should  occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves  itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
 

Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors.

I disagree. And I'm probably the first VC that ran to Bitcoin in a significant way so you need to understand what I saw at such an early stage. For me it was totally about SOV and a replacement for Gold. That is what this thread is all about and is why it is so popular precisely because people have been agreeing with me more and more as the years are going by.

Sure, the payment network is icing on the cake but it remains to be seen just how good that part will be. But it's the SOV that has boot strapped Bitcoin to where it is and is what will take it to the moon. And we need the moon to sustain mining fees on MC. 

I agree with this. The gold-like SOV is absolutely what drove speculation and adoption of Bitcoin.

Serious or facetious?

100% serious

[cypherdoc]

The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should  occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves  itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
 

Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors.

I disagree. And I'm probably the first VC that ran to Bitcoin in a significant way so you need to understand what I saw at such an early stage. For me it was totally about SOV and a replacement for Gold. That is what this thread is all about and is why it is so popular precisely because people have been agreeing with me more and more as the years are going by.

Sure, the payment network is icing on the cake but it remains to be seen just how good that part will be. But it's the SOV that has boot strapped Bitcoin to where it is and is what will take it to the moon. And we need the moon to sustain mining fees on MC. 

I agree with this. The gold-like SOV is absolutely what drove speculation and adoption of Bitcoin.

Serious or facetious?

100% serious

Holy Canolli again!

[Zarathustra]

The root to sustainability is the stateless community, which is anarchy, autarchy and selfsufficiency beyond an economy. An economy has never ever been something different than a "state bastard" (Paul C. Martin). State, money and debt (= organised violence) is the root of the collectivist rise-and-fall-society (communism, feudalism, capitalism, idiotism).

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

In stateless community there is violence too.

Not before the invention of patriarchy - 10'000 years ago. Matrilineal anarchy has been destroyed and was followed by patriarchy (=organized violence):

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.  

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen.    lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin,  go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged.

You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem. SPVP provides a balance and a more decentralized alternative to the mechanism of proof verification.

[cypherdoc]

since I'm on the Cash & Tango thang, i will say this:

If SC's could be theoretically confined to 2 utility chain,  say for fast tx and anon and Blockstream reorganized as a non profit, I could get behind this limited version of SC's.

 However, i suspect neither of those 2 propositions are possible, let alone both together.  .

[Adrian-x]

The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should  occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves  itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
 

Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors.

Let's validate one experiment at a time, the Bitcoin experiment has not concluded and the Bitcoin 2.0 ideas are not a threat.

I want the best idea to win not the one idea to merge into the other. I think you are wrong but that didn't belittle the 2.0 ideas we need both.

[cypherdoc]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.  

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen.    lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin,  go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged.

You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem.

I know they're (federated)  possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.

They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.

[Adrian-x]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

[brg444]

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

Arguments : missing