Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2017, 01:20:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [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 ... 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 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1904116 times)
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
 #19381

Looks like Jeff Berwick is interested as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JT7P9P7kig
Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- gmaxwell
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495804823
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495804823

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495804823
Reply with quote  #2

1495804823
Report to moderator
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
 #19382

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.

You're right, having a decentralised exchange within a decentralised exchange is a structurally suspect concept.

Vires in numeris
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 818



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 04:25:03 PM
 #19383

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  Cheesy)

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.

You're right, having a decentralised exchange within a decentralised exchange is a structurally suspect concept.

There are very important differances. Within Nxt everything happens on the blockchain. It costs 1 nxt to place order, cancel order etc, and you have to wait for a block to confirm. It also only support Nxt/asset pairs. With InstantDex/SuperNet, orders can be placed or cancelled for free - instantly via direct p2p comms. It also supports dynamic order books of any trading pair. Trade settlement then occurs ON blockchain. Atomic cross chain trades will also be supported.
This will destroy centralized exchanges and the need to entrust them with your money. I believe it will one day form a massive pool of liquidity and knock down the current barriers we have with each exchange being it's own separate walled garden.

Again, Nxt is a platform meant to be built on and extended, it is not a "coin". People have begun to realize what kind of innovative power that gives them. SuperNet is only the first "killer app" to come.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:17:40 PM
 #19384

someone's liquidating assets.  this is gonna cause real problems for debt based speculators.:



nice intraday reversal with continuation of the short term Dow Theory non-confirmation:



growth? what growth?



continuing flight to black hole shit.  that's not good:



fear is still upon us:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:38:14 PM
 #19385

I think it was Gavin's argument that as long as the typical home internet connection in the developed world was sufficient for running a full node at the blocksize limit, then this was sufficient protection against centralization risk.  I think it was this type of logic that he used to come up with the 20 MB limit + 50% / year growth proposal (which my gut tells me is too aggressive).  
This is not a definition of "centralization risk"
...

Haha, I thought you'd call me on my non-answer to your question.

Quote
What is centralization risk? How do we know it exists? How to we measure it so that we can compared two proposed courses of action to predict how they will affect it? How will we know if our estimates were accurate or not after the fact?

Instead of trying to guess unknowable magic numbers, identify the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix those.

The blocksize debate gets muddled if we don't clearly differentiate between the blocksize limit and the actual average blocksize. When you mentioned "identify(ing) the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix(ing) those," I assume you're talking about the price of actual P2P bandwidth/Blockchain space…in other words, things that affect the average blocksize rather than the limits on the blocksize that I was discussing.  When it comes to the blocksize limits, it sounds like you're advocating for nothing at all:

That price can not be discovered as long as there's a production quota tilting the scale.

Gavin's proposal basically removes the production quota you don't like, just not all at once, and in a way that we hope will allow an user with a typical home internet connection to continue to operate a full node.  I don't see how implementing Gavin's scalability proposal hinders price discovery for blockchain space / P2P bandwidth to any significant degree (and you must agree that it would be an improvement when compared to the current 1 MB cap).

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:38:45 PM
 #19386

Just like with bitcoin we should evaluate these new opcodes on their technical merit not on who submitted them.

Hey Zerg - no fair - too much signal density (signal/byte!)  

This is bitcointalk - where's the trolling, name-calling, ad-hominem or claim of bad faith bias?

cypherdoc - can you do us a favour and redress the karmic balance before the signal gets too high in here?  Gotta rev up the flame war, it was fun!

Adam


Adam,

i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way.  yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work. don't expect that to continue forever.  instead, perhaps you might want to answer some of the real questions i've posed to you but you have failed to answer:

Adam,

1. in the WP, you mentioned that it is possible that if a SC became popular enough, then Bitcoiners might have to move all their BTC to the SC.  what about those who don't get the memo?  this question is similar to the big debate we had a couple years ago about harvesting apparent "un-used" addresses.  that was obviously shot down real quick in that there is no way to ever be sure exactly that the true owner was dead or had lost the privkey.

2. philosopically, do you see Bitcoin as Money or as an economic "system" for trading assets of all types?

3. what real difference is there in forcing more transparency (as we are now doing with Merkle root audits, regulation, better VC funded exchanges) on 3rd party merchants vs. using SC's where supposedly we will be able to view the source code to ensure no backdoors (only a select few can do that)?  i would argue that the former is no different than the real mechanisms we have today and therefore not experimental or as risky to the degree you're wanting to construct via an unprecedented and untested 2wp.  i say risky b/c i am still not convinced that separating the BTC unit from its native blockchain (MC) is a safe economic thing to do.  its not safe b/c it requires all sorts of new assumptions/requirements such as no bugs in the spvp itself, 100% MM of the SC to be simply "as safe", no bugs or backdoors in the SC code written by all the unscrupulous altcoin devs that you despise of which only a few in the Bitcoin community will be able to vet via inspection of their code.  i expect hundreds of SC's to pop up as a result of your proposal and you yourself said that there are really only a few in the community who could or would take the time to vet potentially malicious code.  given this proliferation, if i'm right, how can honest devs ever keep up with this?

4. given that most of the real world already views a fixed supply of any currency as a liability, what feedback effects do you think a continuous destruction of scBTC from failed SC's will have on Bitcoin itself?  please just don't say "it will only make our BTC go up!"  i think the answer needs to acknowledge that it might be that the market views that negatively as a hopeless downward spiraling deflationary currency that continuously damages the merchant economy by encouraging hoarding.  in this sense, i am drawing parallels to gold being a fairly fixed supply that for the most part nevers decreases.

will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.

i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested.  how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.



btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up.  i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:

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

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction?  Just a few posts back too.  

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here.  Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.  

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations.  And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions.  Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:





now that's trolling!
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 05:58:21 PM
 #19387


Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.


LOL!  An entirely predictable tragicomedy.

Someone should collect articles such as this to help anyone contemplating joining a bunch of Libertarians on some desert wasteland, foreign shore, island, set of welded together scrap barges or ship, etc.  I would suggest as a title for the collection: 'Atlas Bugged.'


_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 818



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:05:49 PM
 #19388


Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.


LOL!  An entirely predictable tragicomedy.

Someone should collect articles such as this to help anyone contemplating joining a bunch of Libertarians on some desert wasteland, foreign shore, island, set of welded together scrap barges or ship, etc.  I would suggest as a title for the collection: 'Atlas Bugged.'



let's just ignore all the other names I mentioned and pick on the most convenient.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 06:08:56 PM
 #19389

The blocksize debate gets muddled if we don't clearly differentiate between the blocksize limit and the actual average blocksize. When you mentioned "identify(ing) the problems which prevent price discovery from functioning and fix(ing) those," I assume you're talking about the price of actual P2P bandwidth/Blockchain space…in other words, things that affect the average blocksize rather than the limits on the blocksize that I was discussing.  When it comes to the blocksize limits, it sounds like you're advocating for nothing at all:
I do not think there should be protocol limit on the size of a block.

I think that miners should pay the relay network to propagate their blocks and users should pay to receive them.

If the cost of relaying a block was discovered in a competitive open market for relaying, then miners wouldn't be able to spam the system with huge blocks without incurring out-of-pocket costs. It would also mean that as the transaction volume goes up, so does revenue for relay nodes which they can use to pay their increased costs.

Once the relay network was operating as a market instead of price-fixed-at-zero clusterfuck we wouldn't have to these continual pointless debates. Resource allocation would just work without needing to be constantly adjusted by central planners.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:20:12 PM
 #19390

...

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:

 - snip - animated gif - small dog humps someone's leg


now that's trolling!

That reminds me to clarify.  I consider Cypherdoc to be the proverbial and archetypal 'frenemy'.  We've got a long history and the last thing I remember agreeing on was that BTC was worth taking a chance on @$2-ish.  Probably why we are both still around.

The thing that is so endearing about Cypherdoc is that he is near completely a troll and and ass-clown, but he seems to totally miss it and seems to earnestly believe the opposite.

Anyway, this thread was made for trolling.  Look at the title and most of Cypherdoc's input for Christsake!  I personally don't consider trolling to be a bad thing in many circumstances.  I developed my theories of trolling back in the Usenet days after noticing that in order to be effective a troll had to have a subtle element of underlying truth.  To that extent a troll post has value.  Generally they also must be amusing...at least to the group of readers who share one's sense of humor.  Here again is a source of value.


adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 06:22:01 PM
 #19391

 Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

  Then someone, not connected to Blockstream, GNC, or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin SuperShibaCoin (SSC)....

(Summary of what JorgeSolfi is saying: if one alt-coin overtakes bitcoin, people will lose confidence in cryptocurrency because it will probably happen again, and a series of popping bubbles is not a good store of value).

Yeah thats one of the reasons I am not keen on alt-coins.  If an alt-coin took over bitcoin it might be the end of artificial scarcity (aka cryptocurrencies) in general, is my assertion too.  You might enjoy this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=911339.msg10012730

or the short tldr; twitter version:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/550841397927235584

Quote from: JorgeStolfi
Summary: doesn't merged mining provide a path for an altcoin to steal bitcoin's network power and market cap, with little investment,  even without any change to the BTC protocol and without any special mechanism to "transfer" BTC to it?

Could some sidechains innovation provide suitable incentives to miners that would prevent this risk?

I think its quite hard to prevent merge mining automatically because people can steganographically watermark bitcoin tx.  eg they could make a multisig where the second sig is not a pub key but a hash of their chain.

However miners could try to find them and block them via whack-a-mole as all users on that network need to know the decoding trick for the stego.  As chains dont tend to be secret society things, that could actually work somewhat.  You saw some miners and pools blocking unnecessarily bloated clumsy MasterCoin & CounterParty transaction encodings using that kind of approach.  (I guess it worked as I think I saw someone say MC & CP now use less clumsy encodings).

Its a little risky to play steganography arms race though because they could bypass that (at the limit steganography wins)  by replacing broadcast by sending one hash encoded for each coin public key in the network and bloat the chain even more, and that couldnt be blocked.  (Because it would take the respective private key to decode and distinguish from real transaction and thats known only to the affected user).

There is a cleverer to get public steganography through the miner-filter, I wont elaborate as I dont want to give the "meta-coin" and "censor resistant IM" spammers ideas.  If you see how too ssshh! (Censor resistant IM like http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2q1gnn/tweetbitorg_censorship_free_content/).  

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:38:30 PM
 #19392

...

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:

 - snip - animated gif - small dog humps someone's leg


now that's trolling!

That reminds me to clarify.  I consider Cypherdoc to be the proverbial and archetypal 'frenemy'.  We've got a long history and the last thing I remember agreeing on was that BTC was worth taking a chance on @$2-ish.  Probably why we are both still around.

The thing that is so endearing about Cypherdoc is that he is near completely a troll and and ass-clown, but he seems to totally miss it and seems to earnestly believe the opposite.

Anyway, this thread was made for trolling.  Look at the title and most of Cypherdoc's input for Christsake!  I personally don't consider trolling to be a bad thing in many circumstances.  I developed my theories of trolling back in the Usenet days after noticing that in order to be effective a troll had to have a subtle element of underlying truth.  To that extent a troll post has value.  Generally they also must be amusing...at least to the group of readers who share one's sense of humor.  Here again is a source of value.



i know it's been hard for you watching me call gold's top on 8/2011 and watching it fall from 1923 to where it is today, while at the same time Bitcoin going from 1.98 to 315.  it's even way worse for the gold stocks. this must've cost you plenty.  

but you're right.  i do love trolling you and the other goldbugs b/c of this.  perhaps it even helps push it down even further.  i know you hate the title of this thread.  and it is gratifying that i may have helped you change your socialist views to a small degree.  but there's no denying your push back trolling as well.  

you know you love me & this thread and can't stay away.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
 #19393

nice intraday reversal of about 210 pts on the $DJI.  nice way to start off the year.  like i said, i really like this setup:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 06:52:40 PM
 #19394

...
but you're right.  i do love trolling you and the others b/c of this.  perhaps it even helps push it down even further.  i know you hate the title of this thread.  and it is gratifying that i may have helped you change your socialist views to a small degree.  but there's no denying your push back trolling as well.  

Just to be clear, Socialism changed my Socialist views.  The only thing Bitcoin did to make me into a belated Libertarian was allowed me the financial nudge to get into a situation where I understood Socialism better as a practice.

I've the same complaints against Libertarians that I had in my battles against them on the Usenet 20 years ago as I do now, and Bitcoinland has only amplified these.

At the system analysis level, I've the same philosophical fondness for some of the Socialist aspirations that I always did...in my interpenetration of Socialism.  Socialism in practice has quashed these as a tenable end-point.  Life is full of pleasant surprises and sour disappointments I suppose.  Gotta roll with the punches and stay adaptable.

you know you love me & this thread and can't stay away.

Sad but true.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:12:20 PM
 #19395

you know what's so disappointing?  i was hoping gold would at least have the strength to get back up to the yellow X so i could reload on ZSL and DZZ.  oh well:

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:20:52 PM
 #19396

 Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

  Then someone, not connected to Blockstream, GNC, or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin SuperShibaCoin (SSC)....

(Summary of what JorgeSolfi is saying: if one alt-coin overtakes bitcoin, people will lose confidence in cryptocurrency because it will probably happen again, and a series of popping bubbles is not a good store of value).


FYI Jorge has no interest is seeing Bitcoin succeed, his goal is to prevent people investing in it.
He has never used it and refuses to install a wallet so people can give him Bitcoin to play with.

There are a lot of other quotes to draw from. I don't think there is a single scenario where he thinks Bitcoin succeeds, but for hindsight.

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

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:40:55 PM
 #19397

I think its quite hard to prevent merge mining automatically because people can steganographically watermark bitcoin tx.  eg they could make a multisig where the second sig is not a pub key but a hash of their chain.

However miners could try to find them and block them via whack-a-mole as all users on that network need to know the decoding trick for the stego.  As chains dont tend to be secret society things, that could actually work somewhat.

One objection is that (as in the "benevolent 51% attack that I outlined before) the miners would have an immediate incentive to merge-mine the altcoin, namely collect its block rewards and fees. 

As you say, the use of the BTC chain to secure the GNC chain has to be public, but it may not be possible to detect it in time.  For example, suppose that, in order to sanctify a block B of the GNC chain, some GNC node must insert in the BTC blockchain the string y = (SHA(B) XOR x), where x is a random 256-bit string; and then publish the string x, only after that transaction has been confirmed.    Then the BTC miners would have no way to detect that the string y is a GNC hook before confirming it.

Other variants are possible.  For example, y can be SHAn(B), where n is (say) 2 trillion.  Then anyone with a 1 GH/s machine could recognize y as the hash of B in ~30 minutes; but no one could do it in much less than that time.  Even if the BTC miners were to run the check in parallel with block mining, it would delay the first confirmation of a trasaction by 20 minutes, and would force them to waste a significant amount of mining work.

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

Activity: 544



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:42:51 PM
 #19398

QE headed for a eurozone near you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-02/draghi-says-ecb-prepares-action-as-deflation-risk-non-negligible.html

Quote
The single currency dropped to the weakest level in more than four years and bond yields slid to a record low as investors bet that QE will start as soon as this quarter.

but not all germans are happy about it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-02/merkel-ally-fuchs-draghi-stop-talking-qe-we-shouldnt-pump-money-struggling-eu-nation

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 07:55:34 PM
 #19399

i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way.  yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work.

Relax, just a joke Smiley  I dont think you're a troll, though I see I am not alone in enjoying flame fests sometimes.

Quote from: cipherdoc
instead, perhaps you might want to answer some of the real questions i've posed to you but you have failed to answer:

I guess I missed some of those, it was a long thread!

1. in the WP, you mentioned that it is possible that if a SC became popular enough, then Bitcoiners might have to move all their BTC to the SC.  what about those who don't get the memo?  this question is similar to the big debate we had a couple years ago about harvesting apparent "un-used" addresses.  that was obviously shot down real quick in that there is no way to ever be sure exactly that the true owner was dead or had lost the privkey.

Personally I would not see anything that didnt protect all ownership, being accepted by anyone sane.  What I mean is eg in the same way you keep your bitcoins as we go from 0.09 to 0.10; you'd keep your bitcoins if we went from 0.99 to 1.0 if that was a hard fork implemented and switched over to using a sidechain as the live-beta process.

Quote from: cipherdoc
2. philosopically, do you see Bitcoin as Money or as an economic "system" for trading assets of all types?

Personally I guess I see it as a kind of virtual commodity which can be used as sound money.  But bitcoin is programable and as I wrote somewhere on the thread I think the programability, smart-contracts are also a big deal as well as the sound-money which is by itself awesome if thats all bitcoin could ever do.

Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9991853#msg9991853
Bitcoin has a lot to offer, and some of those things are not possible for the legacy systems to mimic.  Particularly sound money, no counter-party risk, irreversable transactions (seizing and freezing basically prevent that outside of paper cash, though even that is partly relying on fungibility laws or it could have reversibility problems).  Smart-contracts that are strengthened by no counter-party risk and irreversibility are one of the most interesting advantages I think.  Without irreversibility and no freezability a "smart-contract" isnt smart, its just an electronic contract and we already have those.  Ultimately if you combine it all you could rearchitect the financial system to largely remove systemic risk, add competition legacy systems cant react to (they intrinsically need their governance costs).  This is why people gave us $21mil.  Bitcoin all-in is a big deal.  Sound-money is cool, but its only part of the picture.

I also wrote a kind of parable/scifi story about bitcoin as sound-money which is some kind of argument of bitcoin is special as it came first, universal equivalence of proof of electricity as the unit of bitcoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=911339.msg10012730

Quote from: cipherdoc
3. what real difference is there in forcing more transparency (as we are now doing with Merkle root audits, regulation, better VC funded exchanges) on 3rd party merchants vs. using SC's where supposedly we will be able to view the source code to ensure no backdoors (only a select few can do that)?  i would argue that the former is no different than the real mechanisms we have today and therefore not experimental or as risky to the degree you're wanting to construct via an unprecedented and untested 2wp.

Matter of debate.  I guess while its true as you said they are improving at governance, its also true the scammers our out in force, so its risky relying on governance alone, and merkle audits are after-the-fact.  Mtgox could've had merkle audits and still lost $500m the next day.

Either way I think it is important to simplify, modularise and freeze the basic bitcoin as sound money to protect it from failure.  You realise bitcoin has been lucky or the devs have been epically proficient in coding and testing the code and fixing bugs carefully for nothing to have blown up at a level that wiped out long stored coins.  We want bitcoin to be here in 50 and 100 years.

Then you want people who are using bitcoin for fancier things to do it somewhere else, with a guaranteed firewall between your savings and their more complex code bases.  IMO.  Sidechains is one way to do that.  Another one is provably secure consistency enforcing bytecode VM.

Quote from: cipherdoc
i say risky b/c i am still not convinced that separating the BTC unit from its native blockchain (MC) is a safe economic thing to do.  its not safe b/c it requires all sorts of new assumptions/requirements such as no bugs in the spvp itself

Well as I wrote here:

Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg10001937#msg10001937
Another way to look at sidechains btw is that a federated peg is a multi-sig (with modest parameters eg 5 of 10 and some trustworthy security competent bitcoin interested businesses) and a SPV peg is a bigger federated peg with a 5000 of 10000 multisig with dynamic membership (ie whoever is mining the chain right now).  The spv peg op_code is an opcode to understand those dynamic membership multisigs.  The dynamic membership multi sigs (DMMS for short) are written about in the sidechain white paper http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf and are a different way to look at bitcoin mining, though its actually the same thing.

You can also combine DMMS sigs with regular multisigs, its just an op code so you can program with it.  eg IF ( 0.5*DMMS + 0.5*multisig(5,10) ) THEN spend coin.  Or IF ( hashrate > 75% AND DMMS ) OR ( hashrate <= 75% AND multisig(5,10) ) THEN spend coin can react to hashrate drops.  Different people could even use different peg rules on the same chain depending on their security tradoff preferences.

so a DMMS signature is not so different from a mutlisig, and it is just a new type of multisig, and the bitcoins never actually leave the bitcoin block chain, so I dont think its that ridiculously complex from bitcoins side, and so we can have robust confidence in the security firewall.  Certainly once the sample implementation & BIP are up for discussion, we'll be interested in expert opinion on that and any suggestions to simplify or improve it.

Its also not that alien - the DMMS is just a reuse of bitcoins PoW blockchain as an opcode.  Basically the only new thing is a way to compact it.  As I mentioned it is nearly possible to implement it (or maybe would be with some ugly chained script) already.

Quote from: cypherdoc
unscrupulous altcoin devs that you despise

Yeah I like people who innovate, and some altcoin devs have innovated eg freicoin, cryptonote/bytecoin etc.  I dont like pump & dumps nor false advertising of features that are technobabble and insecure, though along with a lot of other people.

Quote from: cypherdoc
The sidechain, 100% MM of the SC to be simply "as safe", no bugs or backdoors in the SC code written by all the unscrupulous altcoin devs that you despise of which only a few in the Bitcoin community will be able to vet via inspection of their code.  

I gave examples of how the MM rate can be reactively handled in the peg script above.

The code on sidechains is caveat emptor, I wrote this somewhere too:

Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9994476#msg9994476
its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it.  People could certify chains (like sign them - "my name is blah and I'm a security researcher with reputation and I and my buddies audited this code and its good") or wallets could etc.  Its good and a feature that people can opt to use uncertified chains.  You want a situation where there is real open possibility for technical innovation & competition in chain features.

You also want no central control so no chains can get black listed.

Quote from: cypherdoc
i expect hundreds of SC's to pop up as a result of your proposal and you yourself said that there are really only a few in the community who could or would take the time to vet potentially malicious code.  given this proliferation, if i'm right, how can honest devs ever keep up with this?

audit and certify and firewalled risk and dont use dodgy stuff as in quote above, plus train more devs as GMaxwell wrote about here http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

Quote from: cipherdoc
4. given that most of the real world already views a fixed supply of any currency as a liability, what feedback effects do you think a continuous destruction of scBTC from failed SC's will have on Bitcoin itself?  please just don't say "it will only make our BTC go up!"  i think the answer needs to acknowledge that it might be that the market views that negatively as a hopeless downward spiraling deflationary currency that continuously damages the merchant economy by encouraging hoarding.  in this sense, i am drawing parallels to gold being a fairly fixed supply that for the most part nevers decreases.

I contend that widespread use of on-chain security, user controlled private keys, air-gapped hw wallets, and smart-contract business logic executed by the chain (not scam chains, but certified or written by people with competence and good intent) will reduce thefts relative to the governance model that has seen 50% failure rate and loss of perhaps $1bil to date.

About supply decreasing via mishap, another source of loss of coins is user backup failure.  Happens all the time.  I think there's possibility to use trustless bank/custodian where ownership reverts to you (or someone designated like your heirs or an offline key or a banking ombudsan or another bank) if they go bankrupt/freeze your assets.

will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?

My opinion is we dont need too many chains, as more asset types can be available on the same chain (its easier to write a smart-contract between assets natively on or pegged to the same chain).  So I think a separate chain should be for something that cant co-exist with because its mutually exclusive or a different risk profile (say like zerocash or snark smart-contracts (very private and safe/efficient to verify arbitrarily complex contract!) with its dependence on novel crypto).  I would therefore imagine it would more be to help people issue assets, or integrate an existing sidechain than to make someone there very own sidechain.  I mean a chain should be a blockchain which implies decentralisation and neutrality from undue code influence etc.  A company or government "owning" a chain seems like a bad idea, and probably doesnt make sense.  

But I do think it would be interesting to have a government issue its electronic M0 directly onto a chain, which it would do with a secure hw signing key.  The interesting part is that they could make a smart-monetary-policy eg committing to cap QE at 2%/year.  Something like that might greatly improve the stability and exchange rate of a currency that is currently poorly run, because they'd be intentionally giving up control of moral hazard.  Its not an alien concept to monetary policy because they often set eg mandates and limits, its just that in times of stress they break their own rules to their own currencies detriment.

Whether we'd want to consult for someone would depend on whether we think what they're proposing to do is non-evil for humans and for bitcoin.

Quote from: cypherdoc
you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.

what does?  modularising bitcoin and making a securely firewalled extension mechanism?

i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested.  how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.

Sure I said something about profit here:

Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9997666#msg9997666
You should view blockstream as a sort of hybrid.  We are developing FOSS open IP much as a not-for-profit would.  But we are also aiming to make a profit by selling services, doing partnerships, advising integrators etc this is all complicated stuff and people need help to make it work.  Like was said its kind of like Mozilla.

and

Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9997307#msg9997307
The quote didnt say not to make a profit it said to have a dual objective and compared the approach to Mozilla.  Mozilla made plenty of profit (and is a hybrid incorporating both a for profit and a not-for-profit) and also did a good job of making the firefox browser a leading source of user ethos focussed innovation and features.

Greg Maxwell (nullc on reddit) wrote some about how blockstream plans to make profit.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d

I dont think making a profit is a bad thing - to hire developers & QA and UX designers and maintain software and design protocols and figure out how to use smart-contracts and find business partnerships to make those available to users all takes money.  As those are good outcomes, and require more money, you have to have a profit to fuel it, you cant rely on investors to keep putting in more rounds!

Its quite feasible to make money without being controlling, proprietary, centralising or evil.  We certainly aim to try.

Quote from: cipherdoc
btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up.  i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:

Probably predisposed to side with the underdog (no pun intended:), problems with authority, libertarian you know how it goes.  Nah its not for his views but cause you were trying to be rude/belittling.  But chortle at the Chihuahua humping someones ankle video.  Well you did kind of ask for it by saying "you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms" though, so its hard to complain Smiley

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:00:11 PM
 #19400

QE headed for a eurozone near you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-02/draghi-says-ecb-prepares-action-as-deflation-risk-non-negligible.html

Quote
The single currency dropped to the weakest level in more than four years and bond yields slid to a record low as investors bet that QE will start as soon as this quarter.

but not all germans are happy about it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-02/merkel-ally-fuchs-draghi-stop-talking-qe-we-shouldnt-pump-money-struggling-eu-nation



Deflation is everywhere, as I've  been saying, and appears to be accelerating. This is particularly treacherous. I'm continuously buying bitcoin each week.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 ... 1559 »
  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!