Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:30:40 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806359 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 05:58:25 PM
 #17921

like i said, just allow Bitcoin to function as Sound Money and we will win!  do not separate the unit from its BC!  think nom, nom, nom...

Bitcoin-transactions will most likely be VAT-exempt in The Netherlands (Dutch Source)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n2unb/bitcointransactions_will_most_likely_be_vatexempt/

 Undecided

How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented.

Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger.

Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on.

edit : maybe you want to adopt the more reasonable or rational stance related to the danger of changing mining incentives. that is at least a defendable opinion.


There is no we, just an insolent you.

I think it is pretty clear that multiple people in this thread have supported this opinion and illustrated why cypher's "theory" holds no ground.

I'm quite sure even yourself have come to that conclusion and would agree to an extent. Of course you have your own concerns but I think it is necessary, if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes.

"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
1481221840
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221840

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221840
Reply with quote  #2

1481221840
Report to moderator
1481221840
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221840

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221840
Reply with quote  #2

1481221840
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481221840
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221840

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221840
Reply with quote  #2

1481221840
Report to moderator
1481221840
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221840

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221840
Reply with quote  #2

1481221840
Report to moderator
1481221840
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221840

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221840
Reply with quote  #2

1481221840
Report to moderator
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
 #17922

Sustainability in the context of human survival means we must use our limited resources in more and more innovative ways otherwise we are forced to move to mars.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 22, 2014, 06:05:38 PM
 #17923

like i said, just allow Bitcoin to function as Sound Money and we will win!  do not separate the unit from its BC!  think nom, nom, nom...

Bitcoin-transactions will most likely be VAT-exempt in The Netherlands (Dutch Source)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n2unb/bitcointransactions_will_most_likely_be_vatexempt/

 Undecided

How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented.

Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger.

Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on.


Lets set aside whether "the ledger" can be coherently discussed as being on multiple block chains for now.  I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one.  We both know what the other means now, I think.

A single block chain is not always "congruent" with itself.  When that happens, we call it a reorganization, or at a smaller level, we get orphaned blocks.
When these reorganizations occur, what remains is the longest chain and a log entry, and life goes on.  Usually when it has happened it is just a few blocks.  On a faster chain it happens more frequently though.

One of the highly sought after SC is for faster transactions.  
Merge mined chains are more vulnerable than those that aren't.

The kept intact and secure part is going to need some work to manage what happens when there is a reorganization occurs that bridges outside the confirmation period.

The Blockstream whitepaper gives this period a day or two.  That may be sufficient to make it mathematically impractical (maybe even if it is merge mined), or it might not.  Or other folks might compete with Blockstream and offer SC with a shorter confirmation period.  There is a lot of flexibility here, a SC can be most anything.

These single-ledger sound-money links can break.  They may not do so anytime soon, but it is one of those risks we want to address.

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 06:21:13 PM
 #17924

like i said, just allow Bitcoin to function as Sound Money and we will win!  do not separate the unit from its BC!  think nom, nom, nom...

Bitcoin-transactions will most likely be VAT-exempt in The Netherlands (Dutch Source)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n2unb/bitcointransactions_will_most_likely_be_vatexempt/

 Undecided

How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented.

Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger.

Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on.


Lets set aside whether "the ledger" can be coherently discussed as being on multiple block chains for now.  I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one.  We both know what the other means now, I think.

A single block chain is not always "congruent" with itself.  When that happens, we call it a reorganization, or at a smaller level, we get orphaned blocks.
When these reorganizations occur, what remains is the longest chain and a log entry, and life goes on.  Usually when it has happened it is just a few blocks.  On a faster chain it happens more frequently though.

One of the highly sought after SC is for faster transactions.  
Merge mined chains are more vulnerable than those that aren't.

The kept intact and secure part is going to need some work to manage what happens when there is a reorganization occurs that bridges outside the confirmation period.

The Blockstream whitepaper gives this period a day or two.  That may be sufficient to make it mathematically impractical (maybe even if it is merge mined), or it might not.  Or other folks might compete with Blockstream and offer SC with a shorter confirmation period.  There is a lot of flexibility here, a SC can be most anything.

These single-ledger sound-money links can break.  They may not do so anytime soon, but it is one of those risks we want to address.

+1 And I trust that the Blockstream team will proceed with caution when comes the time to implement the public sidechains. As ZB has pointed out anyway, it seems it will take a good amount of time and community vetting for anyone to feel comfortable enough to transfer his holding to a sidechain.

Quote
I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one.  We both know what the other means now, I think.

That is indeed one other way to put it although it sounds to me like ledgers that reconcile effectively form one master ledger and thus the sound money property is safe (in theory)

I'm all for discussing point of failure but I would appreciate if cypherdoc would leave some place for rationality in his arguments  

"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 22, 2014, 06:42:40 PM
 #17925



if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes.

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.

To do this Bitcoin has only 3 advantages in the scheme of things. Fixed supply, security, and popular support. By decreasing security, you'll destroy the other 2. MM'ing can't possibly be extended to more than maybe 2 SPVProof enabled SC's due to resource constraints. The others that Blockstream has a huge financial incentive to sell will be highly risky.

All this serves to degrade and dilute the money function which Satoshi envisioned and will take us right down into a simple trading platform that nobody will want. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 06:53:53 PM
 #17926

i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC.  the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo.  who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS?  thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.

Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:02:02 PM
 #17927



if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes.

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.

To do this Bitcoin has only 3 advantages in the scheme of things. Fixed supply, security, and popular support. By decreasing security, you'll destroy the other 2. MM'ing can't possibly be extended to more than maybe 2 SPVProof enabled SC's due to resource constraints. The others that Blockstream has a huge financial incentive to sell will be highly risky.

All this serves to degrade and dilute the money function which Satoshi envisioned and will take us right down into a simple trading platform that nobody will want. 

In what way is Bitcoin's security endangered by sidechains? The one argument you have running for you is a change to the miners incentive and whether or not this change is for the worst is debatable.

The insertion of SPVP into the protocol allows nothing else but a different mechanism for proof validation. Plenty of "off-ramps" already exist to enable speculation on top of the Bitcoin protocol and many more will be created. They are a product of the overwhelming demand for such schemes. Fortunately, this speculation you are so obsessed with is in no way the only use case for sidechains.

This max of two SPVProof you are pulling out of your ass I assume. The others will be no more risky than any conventional federated model that already exist.


"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
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:03:20 PM
 #17928


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.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:03:59 PM
 #17929

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

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently.  that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere.  those being listed below.  they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's.  well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid.  see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:

0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money

it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it.  i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol.  never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain.  and understandably so.  by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money.  this is so obvious.  the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.

Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are:  the Money function.  that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks.  this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks.  the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts.  those all function reasonably well.  the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks.  w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard.  and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted.  and rightfully so.  THAT is where the money is.  the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown.  the gold market is huge as well.  if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon.  Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex.  it has evolved to that of a public good.  no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money.  let alone profit off it.  

leave the source code alone.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:05:56 PM
 #17930

i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC.  the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo.  who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS?  thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.

Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?

The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is.


"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 22, 2014, 07:07:04 PM
 #17931

i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC.  the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo.  who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS?  thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.

Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?

The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is.



Bullshit again.

I have $21M in investor money that says I'm right.
tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
 #17932

would you prefer that Bitcoin particpate in the coming Currency Wars or get bogged down in trading SC speculative assets directly within the protocol?  remember, you want all this fiat to have to "buy in" to BTC, the currency unit.

Bring On the Currency Wars

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/21/bring-on-the-currency-wars/

Finding it hard to stimulate domestic demand through cheap credit in a world of rock bottom interest rates, the next best solution central bankers have settled on is to generate growth by boosting net exports. And the way to do that is to devalue their currencies.

Those Currency Wars are already underway. It's frightening to think of Bitcoin being "weaponised" as a tool in this regard. Imagine a govt acknowledged actively purchasing btc....

what's so frightening?  this is how we go to The Moon:

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

Preserve Bitcoins Sound Money Function!!!

Poor choice of phrase, I meant frightening in a positive sense!

@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?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:12:57 PM
 #17933

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.

"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 22, 2014, 07:17:02 PM
 #17934


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. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:17:51 PM
 #17935

i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC.  the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo.  who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS?  thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.

Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?

The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is.



Bullshit again.

I have $21M in investor money that says I'm right.

Here's you schizo-logic at work again.

You have said yourself that only very few number of sidechains will be secured by MM. That is because only so many sidechains will gain enough traction to command this security model and generate enough incentive for all miners to adopt. It is therefore logical and plausible to assume that only public-good sidechains will achieve this status. As for the others, they will have to compensate with lesser decentralized models to provide adequate security.

The likely outcome is private or corporate sidechains will be supported by federated models for obvious security and oversight reasons.




"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 22, 2014, 07:19:09 PM
 #17936

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. 
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:25:59 PM
 #17937

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

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently.  that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere.  those being listed below.  they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's.  well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid.  see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:

0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money

it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it.  i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol.  never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain.  and understandably so.  by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money.  this is so obvious.  the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.

Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are:  the Money function.  that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks.  this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks.  the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts.  those all function reasonably well.  the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks.  w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard.  and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted.  and rightfully so.  THAT is where the money is.  the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown.  the gold market is huge as well.  if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon.  Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex.  it has evolved to that of a public good.  no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money.  let alone profit off it.  

leave the source code alone.

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:27:24 PM
 #17938


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.

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
 #17939


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.

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 07:38:10 PM
 #17940

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.

"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 ... 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] 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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