Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:34:45 AM *
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 ... 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] 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803418 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 24, 2014, 11:16:50 PM
 #18061

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.
That's not actually what cryptoanarchism is about.

The violence which cryptography is supposed to protect people from is the violence initiated by governments.

It's about making anonymous trade possible and safe, so that no third party can rain down retribution upon consensual trade for which they are not involved but disapprove, or for which they demand to be paid tribute for the privilege of not being assaulted.

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 24, 2014, 11:30:38 PM
 #18062

more and more realization about the Sound Money advantages of Bitcoin from the gold community.  forget intra-protocol speculative trading:

Bullion Dealer Agora Commodities Will Rebrand to Focus on Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/agora-commodities-rebrand-bitcoin/
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:32:53 PM
 #18063

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

No, you disagree simply because of previous butt hurt with gmax & lukejr. After some digging it is clear as day your problem is your ego.
Huh Roll Eyes

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:33:40 PM
 #18064

more and more realization about the Sound Money advantages of Bitcoin from the gold community.  forget intra-protocol speculative trading:

Bullion Dealer Agora Commodities Will Rebrand to Focus on Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/agora-commodities-rebrand-bitcoin/

forget speculation

there is no speculation

there is no spoon

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:37:11 PM
 #18065

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. 

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 )

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:42:59 PM
 #18066

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. 

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

"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 24, 2014, 11:47:53 PM
 #18067

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.  

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.  

go ahead and use federated servers if you want.  as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity.  AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately.  that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time.  b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.  

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:51:51 PM
 #18068

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.  

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.  

go ahead and use federated servers if you want.  as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity.  AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately.  that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time.  b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.  

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.

 Huh

it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model.

There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC.


"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 24, 2014, 11:52:28 PM
 #18069

another article on the Currency Wars.  Bitcoin wants to be in the middle of this.  ultimately, fiat currency will be consumed by the soundest of monies; Bitcoin.  forget SC's and intra-protocol speculation that will enrich Blockstream at the expense of Bitcoin as Money:

WSJ's Mattich: The Currency War is On

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Mattich-currency-war-China/2014/11/23/id/609158/
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 24, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
 #18070

another article on the Currency Wars.  Bitcoin wants to be in the middle of this.  ultimately, fiat currency will be consumed by the soundest of monies; Bitcoin.  forget SC's and intra-protocol speculation that will enrich Blockstream at the expense of Bitcoin as Money:

WSJ's Mattich: The Currency War is On

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Mattich-currency-war-China/2014/11/23/id/609158/

forget speculation

there is no speculation

"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 24, 2014, 11:58:05 PM
 #18071

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.  

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.  

go ahead and use federated servers if you want.  as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity.  AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately.  that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time.  b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.  

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.

 Huh

it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model.

There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC.



yes they are.  and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value.  not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist.

otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers?  they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse. 

the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment.  and MM is theoretical at best.  NMC is not a valid example of success. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:04:01 AM
 #18072

yes they are.  and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value.  not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist.

otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers?  they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse.  

the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment.  and MM is theoretical at best.  NMC is not a valid example of success.

 Cheesy

your disingenuity knows no bounds.

I suggest you leave technical assertions to technical people.

Not that I am one but saying things such as "federated servers could vanish" (as if Bitstamp, Bitfinex or BTC-e couldn't), "1:1 spvp is vaporware" and "MM is theoretical at best" only serves to make you look like a clown who has little clue what he is talking about.

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:04:06 AM
 #18073

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.  

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

Citation needed, this is just conjecture

my position is clear, dont make the protocol change.

just because the impact is belittled in the whitepaper calling it a mere security upgrade, doesn't make your argument. it's not a mere security upgrade, its a huge change to the protocol that alters the incentive system that secures Bitcoin. it may be a mere change to developers who've go to dev, but it's has economic impacts you repeatedly undermine.  

 FTFU
"the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade as a way to final separate the value on the block chain from BTC the asset to reduce the trust required in the system."

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:07:46 AM
 #18074

poor Blockstream investors.  $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.

that is how you know we are not in a bubble.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:12:22 AM
 #18075

there will be more QE.  do you know what that means?  value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs.  and which currency has that been?  BITCOIN.

“the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”

SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulus


http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/

don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage.
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:14:11 AM
 #18076

there will be more QE.  do you know what that means?  value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs.  and which currency has that been?  BITCOIN.

“the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”

SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulus


http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/

don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage.

Or gold Tongue

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 25, 2014, 12:15:14 AM
 #18077

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted.  it's a laudable goal and very understandable.  we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)


You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. 

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 )

Quote
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

Citation needed, this is just conjecture

my position is clear, dont make the protocol change.

just because the impact is belittled in the whitepaper calling it a mere security upgrade, doesn't make your argument. it's not a mere security upgrade, its a huge change to the protocol that alters the incentive system that secures Bitcoin. it may be a mere change to a developers who've go to dev, but it's has economic impacts you repeatedly undermine.  

 FTFU
"the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade as a way to final separate the value on the block chain from BTC the asset to reduce the trust required in the system."

Maybe they are undermined because of your failure to illustrate these dangers in details and in plausible context?

The last part just goes to show you and your teamate stubbornness and incapacity to recognize that the value is seperated from the Blockchain everyday through schemes much less legitimate and or secure than what sidechains potentially provide.

"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
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2014, 12:16:02 AM
 #18078


I like gmax and his work. I have never met him(he does not know me) but I understand what how and why he wants to say.
 => He is not techno-communists.


I also like gmax and his work.  We met in AMS in 2013 (and prior to that, though he didn't remember).
He knows me mostly by my writing.  He doesn't like my criticisms of government.  Still we have more in common than we have differences.
I'm not a political guy, don't adhere to any party, but I do love liberty, and I tend to say so right out in public.
I've spent many hours in the company of the "original" cypherpunks so certainly some things have rubbed off on me.

I wouldn't characterise gmaxwell as a communist, but I really wouldn't know if he were.

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 25, 2014, 12:18:45 AM
 #18079

poor Blockstream investors.  $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.

that is how you know we are not in a bubble.

yeah. poor billionaires  Roll Eyes

they should've asked cypherdoc before trusting some of the most competent and well educated people in the sphere.

btw I will repeat, just as an attempt to maybe drive the point home one last time, that the concern is not separating the unit from the blockchain (which is technically not true of sidechains anyway) but the seperation of the value from the ledger.


"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 25, 2014, 01:07:26 AM
 #18080

there will be more QE.  do you know what that means?  value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs.  and which currency has that been?  BITCOIN.

“the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”

SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulus


http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/

don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage.

...but but but - bitcoin has to speed up a bit, else we get  Σ1-n[national currencies] -> dollar -> bitcoin

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 ... 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!