Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2017, 07:17:29 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 ... 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] 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1979490 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 23, 2014, 07:48:24 PM
 #17981

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

"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
1506107849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506107849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506107849
Reply with quote  #2

1506107849
Report to moderator
1506107849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506107849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506107849
Reply with quote  #2

1506107849
Report to moderator
1506107849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506107849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506107849
Reply with quote  #2

1506107849
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506107849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506107849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506107849
Reply with quote  #2

1506107849
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 08:30:46 PM
 #17982

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.
.

Yes,  and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 23, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
 #17983

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.
.

Yes,  and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

"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
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 08:40:32 PM
 #17984

oh noes. Icebreaker discovered this thread.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 08:42:37 PM
 #17985

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.
.

Yes,  and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

I thought we already agreed. They are different ledgers. Of course, 24 yo's can get dementia.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 23, 2014, 08:48:28 PM
 #17986

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.
.

Yes,  and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

I thought we already agreed. They are different ledgers. Of course, 24 yo's can get dementia.

Different ledgers, whose units are derived and scarcity defined by Bitcoin. Sub-ledgers are an appropriate way to look at it. Or a tree of ledgers is another.

Either way, they use different models to "settle" with the mainchain and SPVP enables this "settlement" to be operated from within Bitcoin so that no external entities need to be trusted.

Bottom line is the 21,000,000 supply limit is respected and its distribution preserved so yes, sidechains can absolutely be apart of this one, main, ledger.

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 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 23, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
 #17987

"trees"? 

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. You go Peter Todd.

Spvp intra protocol enabled speculation. "tons"of it, I believe you said.  That's just great. Just what a sound money needs to destroy itself.

 You know, I'm just trying to keep the Blockstream investors from losing their shirts.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 23, 2014, 09:04:47 PM
 #17988

"trees"?  

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. You go Peter Todd.

Spvp intra protocol enabled speculation. "tons"of it, I believe you said.  That's just great. Just what a sound money needs to destroy itself.

 You know, I'm just trying to keep the Blockstream investors from losing their shirts.

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

If you only trust satoshi then maybe his explanation can help your poor cause.

Twisting my words to fit your schizo-logic is not.

SPVP enables intra protocol "settlement" (proof verification). Not speculation. Speculation using assets issued from units on the blockchain will be implemented one way or another. SPVP does not help their propagation considering few, if any, of these "speculative" sidechains will command enough adoption of secure required MM.

Quote
As for you what you have yet to figure out it seems is that there are a uses for sidechains beyond tying them to speculative assets. Like, tons of them.

That was the context for "tons of it" you illiterate liar.


"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
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 09:36:15 PM
 #17989

Thoughts can be evil, they should ban all thinking.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:18:09 PM
 #17990

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:29:58 PM
 #17991

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:33:18 PM
 #17992

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:37:18 PM
 #17993

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

btw, how do you "know" these things?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:38:08 PM
 #17994

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:40:01 PM
 #17995

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

btw, how do you "know" these things?

1. it is obvious
2. it is my expectation
3. it is my question :-)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:50:54 PM
 #17996

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)

there would have to be a much easier to do that if true.

given all my arguments, it is quite clear what my concerns are and that i think SC's are a bad idea.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:54:57 PM
 #17997

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)

there would have to be a much easier to do that if true.

given all my arguments, it is quite clear what my concerns are and that i think SC's are a bad idea.

so what will you do in this case Huh (it is 1 of N possible cases)
1. Blockstream devs will implement SPV proof.
2. OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very fast. (let's say it will take 1 month)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
 #17998

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)

there would have to be a much easier to do that if true.

given all my arguments, it is quite clear what my concerns are and that i think SC's are a bad idea.

so what will you do in this case Huh (it is 1 of N possible cases)
1. Blockstream devs will implement SPV proof.
2. OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very fast. (let's say it will take 1 month)


the spvp is no where near being implemented.  much work needs to be done, afaik.

btw, i asked you before but never got an answer.  what mathematical proof is being used for the 2wp with all these federated servers you're claiming are in use?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 11:08:21 PM
 #17999

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)

there would have to be a much easier to do that if true.

given all my arguments, it is quite clear what my concerns are and that i think SC's are a bad idea.

so what will you do in this case Huh (it is 1 of N possible cases)
1. Blockstream devs will implement SPV proof.
2. OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very fast. (let's say it will take 1 month)


the spvp is no where near being implemented.  much work needs to be done, afaik.

btw, i asked you before but never got an answer.  what mathematical proof is being used for the 2wp with all these federated servers you're claiming are in use?

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M.  => M of N  ( eq. 3 of 5 )

can you answer now ? "what will you do then ? "
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 23, 2014, 11:10:44 PM
 #18000

Splitting the currency unit from the blockchain? Who's lame brain idea is that anyways?

1. It is crystal clear that you will not stop Blockstream devs from implementing SPV proof.
2. I'm quite sure that OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very very fast. -> they have no problem to take fees in BTC verifying side chain data.
3. I want to ask you -> what will you do then ?

does it matter?

I am curious. Maybe you are just paid by Blockstream to use inverted psychology and you are only advertising SC.

Is this your real intentions ? (advertise and adopt SC ?)

there would have to be a much easier to do that if true.

given all my arguments, it is quite clear what my concerns are and that i think SC's are a bad idea.

so what will you do in this case Huh (it is 1 of N possible cases)
1. Blockstream devs will implement SPV proof.
2. OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY will be accepted by majority of miners very fast. (let's say it will take 1 month)


the spvp is no where near being implemented.  much work needs to be done, afaik.

btw, i asked you before but never got an answer.  what mathematical proof is being used for the 2wp with all these federated servers you're claiming are in use?

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M.  => M of N  ( eq. 3 of 5 )

can you answer now ? "what will you do then ? "

ah, that's interesting.

it doesn't matter what i do.  i'm irrelevant, remember?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 ... 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!