Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 01:59:06 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 [959] 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011801 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 02:14:57 AM
 #19161

...
so i ask you, Adam, why should i do a 180 degree flip in what i was sold back then and now "trust" you to do what's right for Bitcoin when you have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream?

I seem to recall at least Maxwell pro-actively disavowing this supposed fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream if it also does not happen to be what right for Bitcoin.  He gets to pick up his marbles and go home if he doesn't like how things are going (where as most people have to leave their marbles in such situations except for vested stock and the like.)  This is a novelty as far as I know.  And one I'm liking!  If this is simply a marketing gimmick it worked on me.  I've a favorable opinion both of the devs who write this into their contract, and the investors and managers of Blockstream who at least allow it as a term.

Of course, as always, I happen to see sidechains as not only 'right' for Bitcoin but basically Bitcoin's best hope for success.  Naturally this goes some distance toward helping build my confidence in the enterprise as well, and makes it quite understandable why this novel contract agreement bullet-point is acceptable to all.  It would be fascinating to see how the construct stands up in U.S. court (but I hope it doesn't come to that, of course, and am not expecting it.)



you're missing the point.  the act of leaving by those devs requires a conscious act and decision to do the "right" thing.  how can we keep trying to sell Bitcoin to the world as a "trustless" system when we have to "trust" Blockstream devs to do the right thing?
1511445546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511445546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511445546
Reply with quote  #2

1511445546
Report to moderator
1511445546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511445546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511445546
Reply with quote  #2

1511445546
Report to moderator
1511445546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511445546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511445546
Reply with quote  #2

1511445546
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511445546
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511445546

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511445546
Reply with quote  #2

1511445546
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 02:24:44 AM
 #19162

Also I dont think even statis vs change captures the situation.  If you like stasis, keep your coins on bitcoin main; if others like cool features they can use them on chains that support them.  Why is this a conflict?

I think the conflict is that if one views bitcoin-plus-sidechains as being an economic system, then "just don't use it" is not a valid response. Events in one part of the system may have consequences (including unforeseen consequences) in another part of the system.

[...] sort of bitcoin-backed-coin model [federated peg] that involves some sort of trusted intermediary/intermediaries (what the paper calls the federated model). Nothing prevents someone from making a bitcoin-backed-altcoin [...] Putting aside the rather large issue of backer trust, this is equivalent to a side chain.

I can see the argument.  But wouldnt that have effects on main chain also?  Wouldnt it be more prone to technical and policy / moral hazard failure?

Possibly and that was largely my argument about being inevitable. Inevitable doesn't necessarily mean good (or bad), but something that must be accepted as a matter of reality.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 02:36:20 AM
 #19163


you're missing the point.  the act of leaving by those devs requires a conscious act and decision to do the "right" thing.  how can we keep trying to sell Bitcoin to the world as a "trustless" system when we have to "trust" Blockstream devs to do the right thing?

Sorry dude, I cannot imagine you making that strained argument with a straight face in light of the fact that we already rely on 'trust' in Bitcoin itself in exactly the same manner.  Lots of people are scratching their head about where you are coming from due to obviously nonsense statements like this.

This is especially the case in light of the fact that Gavin is paid, and relatively handsomely, by what a plurality of folks seem to now recognize (so it seems) as a loathsome institution which downsizes mainly when crooks get caught and belatedly kicked out.  It is no stretch to consider the Bitcoin Foundation as being blatantly crooked insofar as it takes funds and supports frauds like inputs.io, and just as bad, seems highly prone to such conspiracies as 'red-listing' which is near universally considered an abomination.  All under the cloak of quasi-secrecy, and god only knows what happens in the real core of the organization.

Even having two shit-bag organizations fighting one another is preferable to having only one, and I see a high likelihood that Blockstream will be anything but.  My only hope is that Blockstream stands up to the Bitcoin Foundation machinations and call them out as needed.  And hopefully bury them eventually.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 02:43:40 AM
 #19164


you're missing the point.  the act of leaving by those devs requires a conscious act and decision to do the "right" thing.  how can we keep trying to sell Bitcoin to the world as a "trustless" system when we have to "trust" Blockstream devs to do the right thing?

Sorry dude, I cannot imagine you making that strained argument with a straight face in light of the fact that we already rely on 'trust' in Bitcoin itself in exactly the same manner.  Lots of people are scratching their head about where you are coming from due to obviously nonsense statements like this.

This is especially the case in light of the fact that Gavin is paid, and relatively handsomely, by what a plurality of folks seem to now recognize (so it seems) as a loathsome institution which downsizes mainly when crooks get caught and belatedly kicked out.  It is no stretch to consider the Bitcoin Foundation as being blatantly crooked insofar as it takes funds and supports frauds like inputs.io, and just as bad, seems highly prone to such conspiracies as 'red-listing' which is near universally considered an abomination.  All under the cloak of quasi-secrecy, and god only knows what happens in the real core of the organization.

Even having two shit-bag organizations fighting one another is preferable to having only one, and I see a high likelihood that Blockstream will be anything but.  My only hope is that Blockstream stands up to the Bitcoin Foundation machinations and call them out as needed.  And hopefully bury them eventually.



gimme a break.  you trying to smear Gavin for being paid by a NON-PROFIT organization is pure blasphemy.  he's paid a salary in BTC which is probably quite modest by ordinary standards.  AND he doesn't have any stock to try and pump or investors to please.  to think he has anything to do with any of the things you're talking about is ridiculous.  he's as apolitical as one gets and we all should be thankful he's lead.  you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:13:36 AM
 #19165


gimme a break.  you trying to smear Gavin for being paid by a NON-PROFIT organization is pure blasphemy. ...

The Bitcoin Foundation is 'non-profit' in the same way that nearly every other 'non-profit' is these days.  That is to say, most participants are profiting nicely in one way or another.  At least at the higher levels.  There are often plenty of drones in the lower levels who make it all possible and never knew what hit them.  And an even greater number who want nothing to do with the scammy organization but get sucked into the vortex in one way or another.

BTW, being called a blasphemer is one of the highest complements one could bestow on me.  So, Thanks!


you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

You are still the broken clock who is right twice a day.  And looks like 2014 won't be one of those periods.  Perhaps 2015 will turn that frown up-side-down for ya.  I wonder how many other people followed Goat's lead and cashed in for gold a year ago.  They'll be smiling now I dare say.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:31:05 AM
 #19166


gimme a break.  you trying to smear Gavin for being paid by a NON-PROFIT organization is pure blasphemy. ...

The Bitcoin Foundation is 'non-profit' in the same way that nearly every other 'non-profit' is these days.  That is to say, most participants are profiting nicely in one way or another.  At least at the higher levels.  There are often plenty of drones in the lower levels who make it all possible and never knew what hit them.  And an even greater number who want nothing to do with the scammy organization but get sucked into the vortex in one way or another.

BTW, being called a blasphemer is one of the highest complements one could bestow on me.  So, Thanks!


you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

You are still the broken clock who is right twice a day.  And looks like 2014 won't be one of those periods.  Perhaps 2015 will turn that frown up-side-down for ya.  I wonder how many other people followed Goat's lead and cashed in for gold a year ago.  They'll be smiling now I dare say.



gold?  u kidding me?  flat over the year.  they'd have been better off going to the USD.

long term, you're toast.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:37:38 AM
 #19167

...
You are still the broken clock who is right twice a day.  And looks like 2014 won't be one of those periods.  Perhaps 2015 will turn that frown up-side-down for ya.  I wonder how many other people followed Goat's lead and cashed in for gold a year ago.  They'll be smiling now I dare say.

gold?  u kidding me?  flat over the year.  they'd have been better off going to the USD.

long term, you're toast.

Not necessarily.  I went to USD and paid a shit-load of taxes.  Had I found a way to convert directly into gold it's not clear that my hit would have been so heavy.

BTW, please forgive me if I don't hang on your every word with respect to what the future holds.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:51:30 AM
 #19168


BTW, please forgive me if I don't hang on your every word with respect to what the future holds.



no, i'm quite satisfied with you nipping at my trouser bottoms.
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:53:56 AM
 #19169

I personally haven't been following the SC discussion these past months but the first thing that comes to mind for me is that any SC for bitcoin would need its own infrastructure. If that infrastructure were not to be as high level as bitcoin (MC) OR it were to be too centralized then having a SC would be pointless as it would be less secure in one form or another.

Not sure if people see this (the majority). If not, then many are going to get burned.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:08:34 AM
 #19170

OK, since this is the "de facto" sidechain thread, here is some serious trolling:

Having read the whitepaper, the grayblogpost, and several lightblueforumposts, I am currently convinced that the sidechains "project" is 100% marketing, with no technical contents whatsoever.  

Specifically, I claim that there is no functionality that sidechains would enable that could not be provided by a project totally independent of the blockchain.  The only (possible, far from certain) advantage of implementing something as a  sidechain would be the transfer of prestige from the bitcoin project to that something.

I am very skeptical of the future of bitcoin as investment and as a currency for e-commerce, but I admit that the bitcoin protocol provides some non-trivial and interesting functionality.    However, paradoxically, its value lies not so much in what one can do to the blockchain, but in what one cannot do (unless one has 51% of the hashing power):

* One cannot insert a transaction with an input that is not an output of an earlier trasaction, or a coinbase;
* One cannot use the output of a transaction more than once as input to another transaction;
* One cannot insert a transaction whose output total is greater than the input total;
* One cannot insert a transaction whose inputs are not properly signed;
* One cannot add a new block that does not have the crypto signature of the previous block and the required proof of work;

and so on.  It is because of these "cannots"  that the blockchain has a non-trivial functionality.

Now, the sidechains proposal describes many wonderful things that one could do with them.  But it does not specify a single thing that a sidechain protocol cannot do, other than the trivial constraint that it cannot return more bitcoins to the blockchain than it took from it.  

The process of transfering bitcoins between the main chain and the side chain is formally equivalent to sending the bitcoins to a blockchain address owned by the sidechain admins, and later from that address to some other address specified by the sidechain admins.  Thus the only constraint above is trivially enforced by the bitcoin protocol as it is (which the proponents seem to admit).

As far as I can tell, since there is no clearing or overseeing of the sidechains by any entity, the sidechain can do absolutely anything at all,  even immediately destroy the keys that would allow "return" of the bitcoins to the blockchain.  It can create its own tokens from nothing,  rewite its operations history, impose arbitrary fees, steal from its clients, use broken cryptography, whatever.  Nothing prevents the "sidechain" from being centrally managed.  Nothing prevents it from being a reincarnation of MtGOX, with Willy and all.  Nothing prevents it from being, by all objective criteria, an altcoin totally independent from the blockchain.

I propose the following experiment: take the whitepaper, or any paper that discusses sidechains, and replace the word 'sidechain' everywhere by the word 'something'.  Would it make any difference?

I see this project as a desperate attempt by faithful bitcoiners to save the "bitcoin industry" from looming collapse, in two ways:

(1) by trying to co-opt the best altcoin projects, so that instead of them saying "bitcoin is broken and cannot be fixed, use our coin instead" they will say "use our coin, which, among other advantages, builds on and is backed by bitcoin, the 'gold of the internet'"  

(2) by trying to convince investors that bitcoin is worth investing in, even if it is failing as a payment system and may be superseded by other altcoins, because it will be the 'gold of the internet'.

I believe that this marketing effort is 'evil' because it is trying to make people think that bitcoin will be contributing functionality to the sidechains, when in fact it is only contributing prestige.  Just as every nation that issued a paper currency found that pegging it to gold or silver was only a marketing gimmick, more a nuisance and embarassment than a concrete advatage, any successful project that starts as a sidechain will almost certainly detach from bitcoin, for the same reasons.

So, fire away.[/troll]

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:32:51 AM
 #19171

PS. The sidechains project may have also another goal:

(3) give hope to those who own large quantities of bitcoins that, if bitcoin is to be superseded by some other cryptocoin, there will be a way to move their fortune to that cryptocoin, at a fixed exchange rate.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:33:32 AM
 #19172

I personally haven't been following the SC discussion these past months but the first thing that comes to mind for me is that any SC for bitcoin would need its own infrastructure. If that infrastructure were not to be as high level as bitcoin (MC) OR it were to be too centralized then having a SC would be pointless as it would be less secure in one form or another.

Not sure if people see this (the majority). If not, then many are going to get burned.

I do see it as a consideration, but don't dwell on it as much as other more interesting and pertinent considerations.

I don't see this as a big threat because I always anticipated native Bitcoin being my long-term value store where sidechain coins be what I use day-to-day.  I have a higher tolerance for risk here because it would normally be a relatively small fraction of my holdings and something I can walk away from in a worst-case scenario.

Secondly, I would be looking favorably to an implementation which would allow me to bail back to Bitcoin more-or-less whole (with, possibly, some degree of slop) if the solution simply evaporated.

Thirdly, I anticipate that under a lot of potential failure modes there would be some early warning of potential problems which would allow me to make a more clean exit.  Here again, I would be looking toward implementations which foster this sort of a scenario.

---

Relatedly but slightly different, I could imagine situations where Bitcoin itself failed or took on attributes which I and a majority of users felt to be intolerable, and the strongest contender as a replacement was itself a successful sidechain.  That might be a concern which is driving an undercurrent of Sidechain fear here in the ecosystem but the detractors are to chicken-shit to fess up.  Hard to know.  Whatever the case, I'm relatively fearless about such things and don't have any sort of spiritual or fundamentalist attachment to Bitcoin in and of itself.  Although I like Bitcoin just fine, I've always felt that if something better comes along, or is promoted to that rank by a failure of Bitcoin, that's something to be thankful for in the scheme of things.  Indeed, I think just such a failure is more likely than not as people naively seek to 'enhance' native Bitcoin to provide capabilities that are effectively impossible.

edit: clarify as 'native'.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
 #19173

i thought this comment from coinlock debating aminok on Reddit was interesting:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qtdxi/thoughts_on_sidechains_by_lukas_ryan/cn9zpi7

[–]coinlock 2 points an hour ago

Please, just concisely explain why having a pegged asset is better than one that is priced by the market for two things that are not equivalent in any way.

    nd you're making up an excuse to call it something else to make it sound like it's just another altcoin with no special characteristics that make it better for the Bitcoin ecosystem

That is exactly what it is. The special characteristic you define is not necessarily beneficial to bitcoin.

    Side chains meanwhile have the same beneficial effect on scaling, but WITHOUT the inflation. It's blindingly obvious that this is good for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

What inflation? Having multiple alt coins is not inflation if they have different utility or features and are thus different. Side chains preserve digital scarcity, but are not equivalent, and over time unfairly priced one way or the other by definition.

    (without introducing the inflationary effect of fragmenting market share across altcoins) by splitting the load of bitcoin and bitcoin-backed currency transactions across multiple blockchains

Why is it desirable to split the load amongst bitcoin-backed currencies? If we want to increase the bitcoin network by a factor of 5 we need to run 4 other side chains. For these chains to be equivalent we would need the same number of peers, and the same cumulative hashing power as the main network, which equals the total amount of power and space we would need to proportionally scale a single chain already. So in that sense we are not scaling up so much as designing a load shedding system.

    Sidechain functionality would undoubtedly be of huge benefit to the Bitcoin ecosystem

I have a doubt. Anyone who has been paying attention should also.

    That is not what's being proposed!

The road to hell and good intentions and all that. If I was playing devil's advocate I would say that you couldn't design a more perfect backdoor into bitcoin if you were trying to build a migration path away from the existing technology.

    Use of sidechains would be 100% voluntary

Until it isn't? For example when you need a sidechain network to accomplish a specific task, in a certain jurisdiction? It seems to me that if I was building a premium network that ran alongside bitcoin, a sidechain would be a great way to do it, like taking the highway instead of the side streets. Since sidechains don't restrict fees I don't see why I couldn't charge whatever I wanted if you needed it badly enough.

    It would increase the freedom and optionality of Bitcoin users in every way

Right now you can take your bitcoin and trade it anywhere for anything, this lets you trade it at a rate determined by a third party into a chain potentially controlled by an organization or government, or pretty much anyone else. So I'm not sure why you say this is helping Bitcoin freedom when it could easily be subverted.

    competing against altcoins with innovative new features (a competitive risk you handwave away, inexplicably

Competing alt coins aren't a competitive risk. If someone does come up with something truly better we will sell bitcoin and everyone will move, thats life. The same thing would happen in a side chain economy. With bitcoin's network effect and hash power lead that seems unlikely. Alt coins are the boogeyman in the room come to steal our bitcoins and dilute our network value.

Listen, we don't agree, but I'm not spreading FUD. There are potential ramifications to this change that haven't been addressed, and a lot of commercial interest to push it through. I would like to see the pitch deck that got blockstream 21 million, I bet it includes some interesting ideas as to how to monetize separate and distinct side chains.

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 1 point 21 minutes ago*

    I would like to see the pitch deck that got blockstream 21 million, I bet it includes some interesting ideas as to how to monetize separate and distinct side chains.

great point. i would too. courtesy of GMaxwell, CEO.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:58:19 AM
 #19174


i thought this comment from coinlock debating aminok on Reddit was interesting: ...


Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:




Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 07:21:09 AM
 #19175

Extraordinary. $0.03 per GB.  There will be no blockchain storage problems:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate-offers-low-cost-8tb-hard-drives/

100,000 users =  32 GB

7,000,000,000 user = 2,000,000 GB every year  =>  2,000,000 * $0.03 = $60k /year

i know you're better than that with extrapolations.  i've seen much higher estimates of userbase; like 2M?  anyways, by the time we get to 7B users, storage space is likely to be $0.00003/GB or $60/yr Wink

I have few easy questions:
 - how much bitcoin transactions did you do last year ?  ( 0 )
 - how much fiat transactions did you do last year ?  ( 1,000 )

And 1 harder questions:
 - how big would be blockchain if 1,000,000 users creates 1,000 bitcoin transactions each last year ? ( 20-40 times  bigger than is now )
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:05:07 AM
 #19176


i thought this comment from coinlock debating aminok on Reddit was interesting: ...


Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:





Ladies and gentlemen. Just look at  what I've had to deal with for 4 years now.  Roll Eyes

BTW, ain't dat da little dog I be talkin bout?
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 09:10:52 AM
 #19177

Quote
as for Daniel's video, you're late, as i already posted about their podcast and commented on it 5d ago here:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9945975#msg9945975

I posted the article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ which came before the podcast and covers more topics & is clearer IMO.

Actually not even.  The podcast is on a completely different topic: a response to Vitalik Buterin's bitcoin maximalism assertion (its pretty funny everyone is too polite to accuse Vitalik of ether maximalism given the percentage of the premine he owns).  

I encourage you (or others) to read David Krawisz article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ he is quite knowledgeable about economics and able to reason.  He draws a conclusion that is a little different to what most are assuming: that it is investors that drive bitcoins price & network effect, and transactional usage follows; rather than the assumption many make that it is the usage that drives intrinsic value & network effect.  I am not sure about that - maybe its a bit of both, but its an interesting and well reasoned argument, that is somewhat reassuring - we're not fully beholden to the success of people like bitpay trying to integrate merchants and the success of those merchants in having people pay in bitcoin etc. if Krawisz is to some extent right.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:25:36 AM
 #19178

Quote
as for Daniel's video, you're late, as i already posted about their podcast and commented on it 5d ago here:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9945975#msg9945975

I posted the article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ which came before the podcast and covers more topics & is clearer IMO.

Actually not even.  The podcast is on a completely different topic: a response to Vitalik Buterin's bitcoin maximalism assertion (its pretty funny everyone is too polite to accuse Vitalik of ether maximalism given the percentage of the premine he owns).  

I encourage you (or others) to read David Krawisz article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ he is quite knowledgeable about economics and able to reason.  He draws a conclusion that is a little different to what most are assuming: that it is investors that drive bitcoins price & network effect, and transactional usage follows; rather than the assumption many make that it is the usage that drives intrinsic value & network effect.  I am not sure about that - maybe its a bit of both, but its an interesting and well reasoned argument, that is somewhat reassuring - we're not fully beholden to the success of people like bitpay trying to integrate merchants and the success of those merchants in having people pay in bitcoin etc. if Krawisz is to some extent right.

Adam


Right. At the end of all of this, stands bitcoin's status as limited-supply, censorship resistant money.

It's something of an accident that *right now* bitcoin enjoys superior transactional properties to online fiat payment systems. Legacy money will get better over time, and crypto won't have the same sorts of obvious and immediate transactional advantages that it currently enjoys. How would the btc merchant-service-providers fair if legacy payments didn't suck?

At that point, it should become more obvious that bitcoin's strength and value proposition is not so much in payments, or even "programmable" money, but as fully independent money. People have to eventually find value in that for bitcoin to have a robust future.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:28:28 AM
 #19179

Extraordinary. $0.03 per GB.  There will be no blockchain storage problems:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate-offers-low-cost-8tb-hard-drives/

100,000 users =  32 GB

7,000,000,000 user = 2,000,000 GB every year  =>  2,000,000 * $0.03 = $60k /year

i know you're better than that with extrapolations.  i've seen much higher estimates of userbase; like 2M?  anyways, by the time we get to 7B users, storage space is likely to be $0.00003/GB or $60/yr Wink

I have few easy questions:
 - how much bitcoin transactions did you do last year ?  ( 0 )
 - how much fiat transactions did you do last year ?  ( 1,000 )

And 1 harder questions:
 - how big would be blockchain if 1,000,000 users creates 1,000 bitcoin transactions each last year ? ( 20-40 times  bigger than is now )

If you have a point, make it.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 09:48:44 AM
 #19180

Extraordinary. $0.03 per GB.  There will be no blockchain storage problems:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate-offers-low-cost-8tb-hard-drives/

100,000 users =  32 GB

7,000,000,000 user = 2,000,000 GB every year  =>  2,000,000 * $0.03 = $60k /year

i know you're better than that with extrapolations.  i've seen much higher estimates of userbase; like 2M?  anyways, by the time we get to 7B users, storage space is likely to be $0.00003/GB or $60/yr Wink

I have few easy questions:
 - how much bitcoin transactions did you do last year ?  ( 0 )
 - how much fiat transactions did you do last year ?  ( 1,000 )

And 1 harder questions:
 - how big would be blockchain if 1,000,000 users creates 1,000 bitcoin transactions each last year ? ( 20-40 times  bigger than is now )

If you have a point, make it.

:-) Sidechains is great idea. Bitcoin wont survive without SC.
SC solves all known problems.
Pages: « 1 ... 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 [959] 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 ... 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!