Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:34:58 PM *
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 ... 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 1021 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805674 times)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 07:42:51 PM
 #19401

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

1481142898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142898
Reply with quote  #2

1481142898
Report to moderator
1481142898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142898
Reply with quote  #2

1481142898
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481142898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142898
Reply with quote  #2

1481142898
Report to moderator
1481142898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142898
Reply with quote  #2

1481142898
Report to moderator
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 07:55:34 PM
 #19402

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
 #19403

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.
loopgate88
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:00:33 PM
 #19404

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



Zerohegde quote. Don't even click the link.


You people are still bickering about BTC and not learning about NXT.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113123/nxt-wants-to-be-a-digital-infrastructure-of-everything
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:06:51 PM
 #19405

One of my primary concerns with sidechains is that this "other degree freedom" is used to work around the hard problems (such as the scalability hard fork) at the possible long-term detriment of the network.  Like you said, "if sidechains were ready...you can have different blockchains with different blocksizes"; I worry that simply having this option might fragment the community such that the hard-fork to increase the blocksize limit doesn't happen.  Without sufficient transactional bandwidth on the main chain, I worry that Bitcoin's SOV properties would be hurt as the "global ledger" becomes fragmented across multiple sidechains.  
Doesnt bitcoin's SOV get helped by more demand for bitcoin arising from more types of transactions (eg share trades, zerocash transactions, snark contracts, micropayments, richer contract language etc)?  Most people seem pretty ecstatic about sidechains for that kind of reason, bringing innovation back to bitcoin rather than in altcoins or featurecoins or altshares.  Maybe one analogy would be say with gold if there was some law mandating you cant use it below some value, and you cant do more than so much trade, and you cant use it for property transactions only cash trades - that might have dented golds 6000 rule as a world currency no?

I agree with all of these points, provided the main chain isn't artificially hampered by the 1 MB blocksize limit.  

Quote from: adam3us
Btw random question, I was meaning to ask with aethereum?  Would a sidechain be a better way to make the point to ethereum that their value isnt in the feature that can be forked, but in cryptocurrencies network effect.  ps I thought aethereum was awesome Smiley except that if I recall it would float from bitcoin so not by quite bitcoin denominated.  Bitcoin users had a perpetual right to claim their share of the coins right?

Aethereum is probably more useful as a sidechain (rather than a spin-off1) and launching it as such would certainly help make the point that the value of a cryptocurrency comes from the network effect rather than from its features (which can be forked).  

I think spin-offs are less useful than sidechains but conceptually still important because they help shift people from thinking that the value comes from the tech, to realizing that the value comes from the distribution of wealth encoded in the ledger (i.e., the 'money-is-memory' point of view).  Spin-offs challenge the notion that a technically-superior alt-coin could supersede bitcoin, since all its superior features could be cloned and then re-launched using Bitcoin's ledger.  (Spin-offs also challenge the IPO-model of launching a cryptocurrency.)

I always suspected that if Aethereum launched as a spin-off with some fanfare along with Ethereum, that Aethereum would slowly leach liquidity from Ethereum, but that both coins would eventually end up dead.  On the other hand, Aethereum launched as a sidechain could survive indefinitely (as it's tied to Bitcoin's pool of liquidity rather than floating) and add value to the bitcoin network by offering features that aren't possible using the main chain (and I still suspect Ethereum would end up dead).      

1Yes, the value of aether would float and Bitcoin users had a perpetual right to claim their share of coins.

Quote from: adam3us
Quote from: Peter R
I know there are some people who disagree, but I think Gavin's proposal to increase the blocksize limit inline with the historical rate of growth of internet bandwidth is a reasonable way to allow the network to scale without significantly affecting centralization.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing other than to suggest you maybe want to take it easy increasing it, eg do it a little and then do more later and monitor the situation.

My concern with the "do a little and then do more later" approach is the huge political effort required to implement multiple hard forks.  If Bitcoin's market cap is 10 - 100X bigger, are we really going to be able to hard fork the protocol again?  I don't think so, and thus scaling will happen in sidechains rather than the main chain by default (rather than because it's the best thing to do).  

Why not open up the Blockchain according to Gavin's proposal (a single hard fork to address scalability), while working towards methods of price discovery for P2P bandwidth / blockchain space?  Worst case it's a soft-fork to reduce the blocksize limit in the future.  

Quote from: adam3us
Quote from: Peter R
I'd like to see the network hard-fork to address scalability before the protocol is changed to support OP_SPV.
Its probably fair to say you want to support both because a sidechain is also a different security formula.  However I think you acknowledge there are centralisation risks so that'd have to be balanced.  If both were done we could see where users were willing to put transactions.

Yes.  This is key for me.  We can't handicap the main chain.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 08:07:10 PM
 #19406

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).

Something else to say about pegging is you should be able to peg a contract from one chain to another, not just bitcoin or issue assets as a combining mechanism.  eg so if someone compiles up a bitcoin denominated ethereum sidechain you could peg the contract out of it into a snark contract sidechain it with more privacy and a different contracting language between something issued there and pegged bitcoin or something else pegged there from somewhere else.

So sidechains give you composability of contracts in different languages and chains.  Its like the decentralised and secure ABI of blockchain coding.

Adam

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

Activity: 815



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:11:39 PM
 #19407

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 08:22:05 PM
 #19408

Quote from: adam3us
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!

Hey you let the cat out of the bag Smiley  Yes thats how.  I use the first one in committed tx (a variant of it).  The second one is time-lock crypto.

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.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 08:29:02 PM
 #19409

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version. 

Is it an alt-coin market + plug-in framework?

Is it decentralised?  Or central-checkpointed PoS?

Does it include a floating alt-coin?  Does it incentivise developers to make example apps by paying them from a pre-mine?

Adam

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:30:23 PM
 #19410

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]

Jorge, I agree with your conclusion, I enjoy your skepticism, SideChains do make some fundamental changes to the protocol, at the incentive level, while Bitcoin is designed to disenfranchise miners over time SideChains offer Bitcoin miners an alternate revenue scheme, that is favorable to that of Bitcoin.  

While I don't agree with your ever increasing skepticism, I see Bitcoin as a radical experiments (despite the many developers think its way too conservative and stogy) I see SideChains much like you do, in my view, they are an expression of the sweat equity of the next wave of investors, marketing hype.

The underlying problem is wanting to experiment on Bitcoin before we have concluded the Bitcoin Experiment.

If I flow the ramifications of SC to there logical conclusion I see Bitcoin being co-opted by those who control the miners, or those who co-opted a PoS Bitcoin SC, and if Bitcoin does succeed at any level, competition will result in many more percent of global resources being used to secure the system than are necessary.

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

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:33:16 PM
 #19411


I may have misunderstood, but you seem to assume that the "true" value of an F-coin is the energy that was used to make the bitcoinium the F-coin is made of; so the overvaluation of the F-coin over bitcoin is inherently "fraudulent".  However, the F-coins also have a value that derived from their utility as currency, and that may be arbitrarily higher than that of bitcoin, if the F-coins have some technical advantages (e.g. faster block time).

Ever since paper money was invented, it usually was first backed by precious metals, and had value equal to its backing.  But then more of it was printed without the required backing, and soon the purchasing power of the paper was below that of the original. 

However, the opposite could conceivably happen.  Just after it was first isolated, aluminum was extremely expensive.  Suppose that, at that time, the Republic of Paflagonia issued aluminum 1 pataca coins.  Af first, people would assign to them a value equal to the metal's value.  Suppose that, ten years later, aluminum was only 1/10 as costly, but there had been little further issuing (or counterfeiting) of patacas.  Then the coin would still be accepted for almost the same value it had originally (just as paper dollars are accepted today.)

This may be an alternative view of your F-coin scenario, with the difference that the overvaluing of the pataca would not have been fraudulent, but a decision of the market.   The same applies to my GNC scenario, or to sidechain coins (as far as I understand them): an increase in value of the secondary coin relative to the primary coin need not be fraudulent, just a plain free market decision.

In fact, the same applies to BTC itself.  Today the market has decided that 1 BTC is worth 312 USD, even though most BTCs in existence cost less than 10$ to make, and even today the marginal cost (minus miner profits) may be 250 $ or less.  And there is nothing hard to prevent the price of a bitcoin from falling well below that cost.

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 08:47:21 PM
 #19412

Aethereum is probably more useful as a sidechain (rather than a spin-off1) and launching it as such would certainly help make the point that the value of a cryptocurrency comes from the network effect rather than from its features (which can be forked).  

I think spin-offs are less useful than sidechains but conceptually still important because they help shift people from thinking that the value comes from the tech, to realizing that the value comes from the distribution of wealth encoded in the ledger (i.e., the 'money-is-memory' point of view).  Spin-offs challenge the notion that a technically-superior alt-coin could supersede bitcoin, since all its superior features could be cloned and then re-launched using Bitcoin's ledger.  (Spin-offs also challenge the IPO-model of launching a cryptocurrency.)

I always suspected that if Aethereum launched as a spin-off with some fanfare along with Ethereum, that Aethereum would slowly leach liquidity from Ethereum, but that both coins would eventually end up dead.  On the other hand, Aethereum launched as a sidechain could survive indefinitely (as it's tied to Bitcoin's pool of liquidity rather than floating) and add value to the bitcoin network by offering features that aren't possible using the main chain (and I still suspect Ethereum would end up dead).      

1Yes, the value of aether would float and Bitcoin users had a perpetual right to claim their share of coins.

Very cool, fully agree.  Anyway I was applauding and telling everyone about Aethereum at the time you released it.  Hilarious.

Quote from: Peter R
Quote from: adam3us
Quote from: Peter R
I know there are some people who disagree, but I think Gavin's proposal to increase the blocksize limit inline with the historical rate of growth of internet bandwidth is a reasonable way to allow the network to scale without significantly affecting centralization.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing other than to suggest you maybe want to take it easy increasing it, eg do it a little and then do more later and monitor the situation.

My concern with the "do a little and then do more later" approach is the huge political effort required to implement multiple hard forks.  If Bitcoin's market cap is 10 - 100X bigger, are we really going to be able to hard fork the protocol again?  I don't think so, and thus scaling will happen in sidechains rather than the main chain by default (rather than because it's the best thing to do).  

Yeah I dont know.  Maybe there's a way to have it reactively grow - if you talk to GMaxwell he has another idea involving rolling mean as a cap or something fancy like that (to avoid gaming to drive up the blocksize to lock out people with less bandwidth).

Quote from: Peter R
Why not open up the Blockchain according to Gavin's proposal (a single hard fork to address scalability), while working towards methods of price discovery for P2P bandwidth / blockchain space?  Worst case it's a soft-fork to reduce the blocksize limit in the future.  

A problem with Gavin's proposal is the fixed schedule - what happens if bandwidth doesnt make the growth curve, then we get bandwidth driven centralisation.  Soft-fork reduction ... maybe thats another answer yes.  GMaxwell may have the winning idea.  (He has a habit of doing that).

Its also not clear every transaction needs to go on the mainchain - with or without sidechains.  Eg you can do things with time-locks like payment channels and payment channel hubs without third party risk also for micro-payments.   There ought to be a way to cryptogaphically back coins that can scale for different uses, or with sharding.  Eg take a look at Rusty Russell's pettycoin (its not an alt its a micropayment network bitcoin auxiliary chain aiming at scaling to 100k tx/sec.)

He has a video up about pettycoin chain sharding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzst_gChOr8.

Peter Todd is also trying to figure out tree-chains which is a sort of hierarchical sharding idea.

Snarks can solve the problem too but are novel bleeding edge crypto, and so far have a key gen trapdoor also.

Maybe chain pressure does something else: drive scaling innovation. 

You just dont want it to become disruptive short term as its hard to react bitcoin code fast, nor push people into weak offchain systems.  There maybe an aspect of doing something simple and fast enough to get confidence of to take the pressure off while people figure out these more complex approaches.

Adam

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

Activity: 1106


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 08:55:46 PM
 #19413

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version.  

Is it an alt-coin market + plug-in framework?

Is it decentralised?  Or central-checkpointed PoS?

Does it include a floating alt-coin?  Does it incentivise developers to make example apps by paying them from a pre-mine?

Adam


Wow. Its amazing that technologies like SuperNet still haven't been heard of. Shows how fast things move in crypto development.

If you haven't heard about what is happening with GAME, check it out.  It's revolutionizing gaming. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1266597.0
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 09:21:29 PM
 #19414

Agreed.  But you're also not completely off the hook.  There are also economic implications from offchain and voting-pools version of offchain.  People also have a right to ask about that similarly.  There are actually economic implications.  If OpenTransactions sucks a bunch of transactions off-chain that deprives bitcoin of transaction fees, and so it lowers bitcoin security.  I am not saying this is a bad tradeoff, just point out that nothing is free of implications.

I dunno, it seems part of the bitcoin social contract is to be deliberately (and ideally enforceably) agnostic about what people do with their bitcoins. It that means sending them to some crazy off-chain system with voting pools or whatever other silly idea, so be it. How is that anyone's business any more than spending them on wikileaks donations?

If bitcoin can't handle people doing crazy things off chain like voting pools or MtGox, then it has some pretty big problems. It seems fairly proven that it can survive MtGox at least.

This includes the so-called federated model of sidechains.

I still see a gargantuan difference between that and changing the protocol.

i agree completely.  there's too much FUD being slung around about problems with offchain services.  if anything, it's getting better as in the case of exchanges and wallets.  not perfect, but better esp for the bigger ones.

and who is anyone to restrict where ppl send their BTC?

well seemingly you, for articulated reasons that we're exploring, would like to restrict people from sending their coins to a sidechain.

I agree people should be able to do what they want with their bitcoin and send them where they want.

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.

I dont see that as some how evil or dangerous relating to offchain transactions (we've seen them cause system shocks mtgox etc) or federated pegs or voting pools (then you are depending on the 5 of 10 of their security etc its better but its still non-zero risk) ... its just the next evolution in that direction - more decentralised, more things enforced by the network.  For example read Nick Szabo's recent blog post about fiduciary code http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html what do you think he's talking about?

You complain about incentive, but I talked about the details of that and there are multiple secure and workable parameter choices with usable tradeoffs , and off-chain transactions and voting pools have incentive too - the holder just steals them for free with no effort!!  Thats pure human trust.

Incentive discussion was here
Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9988763#msg9988763
Note also the 51% takes all coins risk depends on the peg script.  Its possible to limit that problem and place the risk on the people doing the arbitrage or transfers by forcing the person returning coins to put up a bounty in main-chain bitcoins equal to the exchange which they forfeit if their transfer is proven fraudulent by a chosen % of the sidechain.  There can also be caps and time-adaptive delays (longer for more bitcoin).  Its a programming language, the op_spv is just an opcode to simplify the coding of one part of it, validating the compact-proofs.

Also for the non-voting pool version the statistics are horrible it used to be that 50% of exchanges that ever existed went down with loss of user funds.  Yes its improving but lets ask you a question: do you store investment amounts of bitcoins on an exchange?  Or a web wallet?  Or an offline/paper wallet with backups?  I imagine you do the latter.

Its also (I said this before on this thread) basically embarrassing that bitcoin is repeating the banking governance failures of the last century and of 2008 etc when the entire point of smart-contracts and programable trust is that users can have direct control of their funds and not have to trust third parties.

One of the interesting motivations for wanting the extensibility that sidechains provides is to be able to make that zero trust a reality for more Bitcoin transaction types.

Adam


Adam, I applaud what you are doing, and I think you and Greg Maxwell and many of your investors see a viable business opportunity in this space.

But with all due respect, no one in this debate has ever said that anyone should dictate how people use Bitcoin, and this is not how the debate should be framed.

Blockstream, is counting on people doing what they want with there Bitcoin, with one exception, Blockstream are proposing / dependent on, people doing so after change the insensitive structure that governs Bitcoin by altering the protocol, this is arguably an evil at this sage of the game.
 
I find the idea of a federated peg with a multi-sig a natural evolution and a necessary innovation to the Bitcoin space, and I wish you all the best in exploring business opportunities in developing it.
I see a market and a need for systems to manage SVS pegs where there is a centralized authority and opportunity for innovation in keeping them honest.

I take exception in Bloxkstreams proposal in the idea of taking it to next level, one you and many other seem to think is a trivial evolution, the idea is to have the SPV proof managed and signed by the cooperation between another decentralized system and the decentralized Bitcoin Blockchain. This will over time, if you've flowed the discussion over the last 100 pages, allow for inflation that will ultimately kill the Bitcoin experiment.


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.

Adam

reading nullc's statement on redit:

I can only conclude that Blocstream is the first for profit to propose modifications to the bitcoin protocol to extract wealth from the Bitcoin ecosystem itself without offering a business proposition to the community.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 02, 2015, 09:26:32 PM
 #19415

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version.  ...

Why, it's a decentralized decentralization decentralizer.  And legal to!  Says so right on their web site.  Can't you read?


CryptAxe
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 09:50:21 PM
 #19416

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version.  

Is it an alt-coin market + plug-in framework?

Is it decentralised?  Or central-checkpointed PoS?

Does it include a floating alt-coin?  Does it incentivise developers to make example apps by paying them from a pre-mine?

Adam


When I first contacted jl777 after hearing about his plans for the superNET, I was incredibly excited not only because I believed it needed to happen but because I was hoping that the solution to the lack of communication between blockchain technologies would be decentralized. What superNET offers is to act as the decentralized network that allows other decentralized blockchain based technologies to communicate.

Imagine that you have a big room full of instances of blockchain technologies (for example crypto-currency wallets (btc, ltc, nxt etc), storage programs like storj, or anything else that people may come up with in the future that makes use of blockchains). As it stands now, all of these technologies would be running independently of eachother (or floating as I've seen you describe it) without any means of knowing about the others, or making use of the other's technology.

The superNET may act as the messenger between these blinded and independent technologies. Right now if you want to use the features of BTCD to perform anonymous transactions, or use the staking coin storage abilities of coins like NXT, the asset trading market of NXT, domain name services of Namecoin, encrypted messaging of Opalcoin, the decentralized cross-chain ledger of  ATOMIC, etc (the list goes on and on and you probably know of even more examples of new technologies than I), then you would need to go and download, install and sync with the blockchains of all of these wallets. superNET will allow you to use all of those features in one place, without acting with central control (as all of those blockchains will remain independent) Another way to think about it would be that you have several major cities (Bitcoin, BTCD, storj) each offering their own attractions (the most secure ledger of Bitcoin, the anonymous transactions of BTCD and the storage of storj) the superNET is the system of highways that will allow people to not stay in just one city, but allow them to venture out making use of all of the attractions and  hopefully it will encourage developers to actually make useful features out of the blockchain technology, now that they are more accessible than ever.

Here's a great article that might help out in understanding as well: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/18167/what-is-the-supernet-jl777s-vision/

_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 815



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
 #19417

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version.  

Is it an alt-coin market + plug-in framework?

Is it decentralised?  Or central-checkpointed PoS?

Does it include a floating alt-coin?  Does it incentivise developers to make example apps by paying them from a pre-mine?

Adam


TLDR is very difficult, this thing is huge. It's like asking for a tldr of what is the internet:) I'll let CryptAxe's response handle that one.

Is it an alt-coin market + plug-in framework?

Sort of but not exactly. It does implement some different coins in order to allow them to share their features with eachother. It is also a platform for business to build project on top of. For instance coinomat already has a service that allows you to instantly purchase and sell your crypto currency, and withdraw it directly to a credit card, directly from within the supernet client. Another team is building a decentralized poker application. Another team is building integration with Storj. A decentralized exchange system is also built in (with dynamic order books of any pair), with cool things like open source trade bots that people can code and fund and share in the profits. Another project someone is working on integrating small AI plugins directly into the blockchain. Basically, the possibilities here are endless. SuperNet is sort of like a cryptocurrency web browser.

Is it decentralised?  Or central-checkpointed PoS?

It is very decentralized. Given that it is not a "coin" but a collection of many coins and service. The software itself is a collection of nodes running a DHT network and extracting small fees for certain usages of the network. These fees are paid out to different actors in the system to provide incentives to keep the network running.

Does it include a floating alt-coin?  Does it incentivise developers to make example apps by paying them from a pre-mine?

BitcoinDark is one core coin of supernet however you are not required to hold them to use the system. The system is capable of just using them behind the scenes and is also a key ingredient to the teleport/telepathy systems which is an incredibly powerful method of anonymizing transactions and communications.  It also support communication with html files and may one day be more anonymous and private then Tor itself. White paper here: https://www.copy.com/s/x4mYj7Cy9tNtwwXg. This is currently being reviewed by Kristov Atlas. Developers are incentivised by owning assets in the differant supernet projects. Holders of these different assets receive dividends and rev share with all of the differant companies that join the supernet. This has the very interesting side effect of causing everyone to work together and help each other succeed, which is a beautiful sight in crypto. SuperNet is now number 16 on CMC. https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/supernet-unity/

Also, this isn't just pie in the sky, most of the code is complete and we expect a v1 release this month:
https://github.com/jl777/libjl777
https://github.com/jl777/btcd
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2015, 10:32:33 PM
 #19418

So not a single thought on the SuperNet model eh Adam?

I dont know much about it (so these are just questions):

So what is it?  Whats the TLDR; version.  ...

Why, it's a decentralized decentralization decentralizer.  And legal to!  Says so right on their web site.  Can't you read?

Although lacking solid implementation details, SuperNET has plenty of vision and marketing burble (just like Blocknet and Paycoin).

Short of some breakthrough crypto technology, how does it provide secure interoperability between blockchains?

jl777 has written very many words about this, but they provide little insight.

I hope there is more to it beyond hand-waving, woo, and [because magic] but am not putting any money into it beyond a stash of BBR.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 10:36:53 PM
 #19419

Adam,

1.  what's your view on the maximum #SC's that can reasonably be MM'd by the Bitcoin mining network?  i'm not aware of any capable mining software in existence today that would allow multiple SC MM'ing besides the simple Namecoin experiment, which is a public service altcoin afaic.

2.  given that individual miners have limited resources and technical skill, won't MM'ing force solo miners into pools where these skills and resources will be more centralized?

3.  we've already seen a 10x drop in the prices of mining hardware as a result of the stiff competition and profit crunch.  this is a natural cyclic effect of the game theory which drives competition for BTC rewards and tx fees.  you say that SC's can help these profits by helping to extend demand (possibly).  but the fact is, you're compensating for what is a natural result of the incentive structure as the rules are currently written.  you're changing the rules of the game, midstream, that changes the market assumptions behind mining.  i actually consider these extremely thin marginal profits to be in an exquisite balance today.  considering only the positives of this change while ignoring the possible negatives is naive as this is an extremely complex topic.

4.  51% attacks will be much more profitable and tempting with SC's, imo, as they don't risk destroying mining pools main source of income, the MC.  short selling the to be attacked SC on an exchange while stealing its scBTC at the same time could be quite a profitable scheme. 

5.  if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally.  given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 02, 2015, 10:42:56 PM
 #19420

2.  given that individual miners have limited resources and technical skill, won't MM'ing force solo miners into pools where these skills and resources will be more centralized?

What solo miners?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1021 ... 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!