Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 04:29:20 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995987 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:01:01 PM
 #17921

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.

"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
1508430560
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508430560

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508430560
Reply with quote  #2

1508430560
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:03:00 PM
 #17922


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:08:15 PM
 #17923

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:10:35 PM
 #17924

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.

"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, 08:13:49 PM
 #17925

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:15:21 PM
 #17926


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

"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, 08:18:38 PM
 #17927


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:18:55 PM
 #17928

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:23:05 PM
 #17929

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.

"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, 08:25:25 PM
 #17930

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
 #17931

Quote from: cypherdoc. ink=topic=68655.msg9623629#msg9623629 date=1416681760

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:29:30 PM
 #17932

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:31:13 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.

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

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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:35:22 PM
 #17934

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

"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, 08:35:39 PM
 #17935

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.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:40:38 PM
 #17936

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.

Yes, federated models will probably be central to Blockstream business model.

SPVP will facilitate the construction of open-source, public good, platforms/sidechains that will likely be built in cooperation with the community and will allow anyone to leverage their utility and build applications on top of them.

Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities.


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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:48:02 PM
 #17937

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.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

"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
BitMos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182

"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 08:59:10 PM
 #17938

You can end the currency quite nicely without ending the country.

As long as the Imperial Armies are standing and agree we can do pretty much what we want. Quantic weapons pose a problem that only true peace can resolve. to get true peace love must be at the center of it. Gold is against peace and love. It destroy the Earth. If you can't live in peace with the Earth that saw you born, what else could you expect, but what you seed is what you are going to ripe.

money is faster...
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 22, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
 #17939

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.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 22, 2014, 09:21:02 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.

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

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

"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 ... 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!