Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 04:07:00 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1022 1023 1024 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806864 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
 #19461

... Worse, if bitcoin stops being used as a currency of commerce, it will lose its value, and then will become useless also as crypto-gold.

Pffft.  Bitcoin never was 'used as a currency of commerce' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) and it achieved a pretty significant value...though barely a tiny fraction of it's potential.  I've heard the same nonsense assertions spouted by Joe Random Nobody as though they have some position of authority for years now as have a lot of us.  Normally it's not worth the bother to respond.

Doesn't sound like a troll to me. +1 brother

Sounds to me like a couple of butt-hurt losers who got in late and are crying in your beers about it.  Commiserate away.  Sniffle.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481256421
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256421

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256421
Reply with quote  #2

1481256421
Report to moderator
1481256421
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256421

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256421
Reply with quote  #2

1481256421
Report to moderator
1481256421
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256421

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256421
Reply with quote  #2

1481256421
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 04:05:52 AM
 #19462

... Worse, if bitcoin stops being used as a currency of commerce, it will lose its value, and then will become useless also as crypto-gold.

Pffft.  Bitcoin never was 'used as a currency of commerce' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) and it achieved a pretty significant value...though barely a tiny fraction of it's potential.  I've heard the same nonsense assertions spouted by Joe Random Nobody as though they have some position of authority for years now as have a lot of us.  Normally it's not worth the bother to respond.

The counterargument would be that the value achieved is a discounting of future value expected by (future) use as a currency of commerce. But if you take away the latter, the former disappears as well.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 04:33:41 AM
 #19463

Pffft.  Bitcoin never was 'used as a currency of commerce' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) and it achieved a pretty significant value...though barely a tiny fraction of it's potential.
The counterargument would be that the value achieved is a discounting of future value expected by (future) use as a currency of commerce. But if you take away the latter, the former disappears as well.

Indeed.  A year ago, that was THE argument that bitcoiners used, all the time, to 'prove' that 1 BTC would be worth a fortune (1 million dollars, often) in the future.

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

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:53:56 AM
 #19464

Pffft.  Bitcoin never was 'used as a currency of commerce' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) and it achieved a pretty significant value...though barely a tiny fraction of it's potential.
The counterargument would be that the value achieved is a discounting of future value expected by (future) use as a currency of commerce. But if you take away the latter, the former disappears as well.

Indeed.  A year ago, that was THE argument that bitcoiners used, all the time, to 'prove' that 1 BTC would be worth a fortune (1 million dollars, often) in the future.

Not this bitcoiner.  I always considered it absurd due to the design of the system.

Gold is the counter-point inevitably comes up in these discussions.  Gold isn't used as a 'currency of commerce' in the least.  It sits in a vault doing nothing for decades at a time yet it has significant value and is in high demand.  Usually the vault that of a nation state.  The safest, most 'distributable', most supportable, etc blockchain would be one which mimics this use.

It is still possible (in most countries) for any Joe Sixpack to obtain and dispose of gold if they want, and very occasional he may do so in some sort of unusual transaction.  Very rare though.  I bought a house a few years back and had to prove that I had certain assets.  I went to my safe deposit box and got some of my stash, then to the real estate office down the street, showed the agent, and made photocopies.  No shit!  Obviously I didn't want to take the conversion hit of changing them to USD then back again, and didn't wish to use them to pay for the house and was expecting a batch of cash to show up in a few weeks due to some work related stuff.  The real estate agent had never heard of nor seen such a thing.  But it worked.  Crypto-currency would have been so much better.

Doing some 'commerce' I do need a 'currency of commerce' regularly and for this I use USD (me being an American.)  I 'demand' only what I need for relatively immediate use and don't have demand for much more since I don't use it as a vehicle for store of value.

It is true (albeit very pie-in-the-sky) that if BTC were even modestly used as a 'currency of commerce' the valuations would rise just to achieve the needed liquidity, but the risks are huge and I don't believe that Bitcoin could exists in a desirable form under this pattern of utilization due to design deficiencies.  It is more true that if Bitcoin can achieve and maintain trust in a 'reserve' or 'store of value' role where most non hand-to-mouth people store most of their wealth, that would elevate the valuations at least as much as this need for 'currency of commerce' liquidity demand.  'Trust' in my book means defensible against corp/gov attack which diminishes or disappears with significant use as an 'exchange' currency.


smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 07:02:28 AM
 #19465


This is exactly what I see. Huge spoiler with really no purpose. HAHAHA  Grin Grin Grin

thanks for that!

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

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

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

Activity: 544



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 08:01:19 AM
 #19466

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.



Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 08:14:35 AM
 #19467

Sorry for the pessimism, but (1) my image of the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages is the first image above with 20 chairs bolted to each wing and three cargo containers attached underneath the fuselage.  Then, (2) moving away from bitcoin as currency would be like removing the engine and propellers to make room for more luggage.
i hate to have to agree with the ultimate Bitcoin troll but you're right.
and we know this by Adam's vision of what Bitcoin is and his thoughts.
oops.  you simply said Bitcoin and not Bitcoin+SC's.  my mistake.  i don't agree with you.  you're simply a troll.
No, by "the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages" in sentence (1) I meant the bitcoin plus sidechains plus wahetever additions to the protocol are being considered to make sidechains work and to try to co-opt any promising altcoins.

That project is trying to patch extraneous functionality into the already-abused bitcoin protocol in order to turn it into a global production service for a multitude of fuzzy tasks that it was not intended to do.

The bitcoin protocol was frugally designed and implemented by "Satoshi" for a single specifc purpose: namely, to test whether his solution to an old technical problem (motivating a bunch of uncoordinated volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed, decentralized payment ledger) actually worked.  Just like the Wright Brothers' Flyer One was designed and built specifically for one purpose: namely, test whether their solution for heavier-than-air flight actually flew and could be steered - nothing more.  

The bitcoin protocol is already ill-suited for all the things that people want to use it for today -- hedge against inflation, get-rich-quick scheme, internet roulette/dice, global competitior to paypal, visa and western union, ....  And now it is to become the central timestamping and trust management and whatnot for thousands of sidechains.  Such extreme repurposing of an inadequate design is bound to produce a monstrosity that will not stand on its feet.

The second part (2) above refers to the more extreme view that bitcoin would cease to be used as a currency and would become to all cryptos what the gold used to be to all national currencies.  But gold used to fill that role only because of historical and cultural inertia, and it lost it once people got used to unbacked paper money.  Bitcoin does not have such history; on the contrary, the altcoins started out as fiercely independent of it.  Thus, trying to turn it into the 'gold of crypto' and convincing the altcoins to adhere to the 'gold standard' is going against the natural evolution of money.  Worse, if bitcoin stops being used as a currency of commerce, it will lose its value, and then will become useless also as crypto-gold.

Doesn't sound like a troll to me. +1 brother

+ 1 here, I for one want to see the Bitcoin experiment prove the underlying assumption that it's more than a frugally designed protocol but a solution for digital cash before BlockSteam fuck it up.

Adam the reason Bitcoin is considered successful thus far is real people have invested in giving it value, running SVP proof on the Bitcoin blockchain just put it all at risk.

I'll guess the falling price is an opportunity to invest in the status quo, or it'll fall more with every public victory Blocksteam win in the PR war.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 08:17:44 AM
 #19468

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.


Quite the opposite most are heavily invested in Bitcoin and more over the idea of hard money.
SC are a threat to fundamental hard money function in Bitcoin.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 08:41:19 AM
 #19469

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.


Quite the opposite most are heavily invested in Bitcoin and more over the idea of hard money.
SC are a threat to fundamental hard money function in Bitcoin.

I would agree that it isn't just the alt coin camp talking down SCs.

SCs have the potential of giving people a false hope of it being equivalent to Bitcoin but in fact not having all of the elements of MC Bitcoin.

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

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

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

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
 #19470

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.


Quite the opposite most are heavily invested in Bitcoin and more over the idea of hard money.
SC are a threat to fundamental hard money function in Bitcoin.

I would agree that it isn't just the alt coin camp talking down SCs.

SCs have the potential of giving people a false hope of it being equivalent to Bitcoin but in fact not having all of the elements of MC Bitcoin.
Homeopathic remedies are still acceptable forms of snake oil. Magical thinking is everywhere. Bitcoin has properties that can't be duplicated. There can't be generic forms of Bitcoin, but there are placebo trials called altcoins.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 01:42:31 PM
 #19471

Wow, great article on Internet freedom.  If you can't see where Bitcoin stands in this battle,  you're an idiot.  Bitcoin SC's as stocks, bonds, or insurance contacts won't help in this regard:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/business/international/web-freedom-is-seen-to-be-growing-as-a-global-issue-in-2015.html?ref=technology&_r=0&referrer=
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 01:51:52 PM
 #19472

I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.





You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:04:35 PM
 #19473

... we can let those guys insert an op_code ...

Do you know how many op_codes bitcoin already supports and what they do ?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

nope.  i'm just going along with BS's new way of presenting this argument.  if we shouldn't prevent the spvp op_code, why should we prevent op_codes submitted by OT or any other alt or Bitcoin 2.0?

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

Ok, then tell them to STFU about me and  all the other SC opponents  "preventing" them from doing a damn thing. Code it up, stop the marketing and complaining, and we'll evaluate away.

Perhaps a  promise from BS core devs  to treat similar ops from altcoins would be appropriate as well although I suspect that would break their  backs.
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:17:29 PM
 #19474

If it wasn't for them dirty SC pimps, we wouldn't be below $300 right now Angry
Blitz­
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


"Cut Your Loose"


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 02:20:20 PM
 #19475

If it wasn't for them dirty SC pimps, we wouldn't be below $300 right now Angry
Bring out the pitchforks. 😠

"Bitcoin had been transformed from an anarachistic challenge to the financial status quo, to the crypto spawn of Satan, fuelled by cut-throat greed and delusions of avarice." - MatTheCat
"these people don't seem to want to stop till Bitcoin is completely destroyed and left like an old cum rag in the corner of the room." - ShroomsKit
The Chainmaker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 03:02:56 PM
 #19476


What is QuixCoin?

Google has never heard of it, and that's saying something.

EDIT: maybe this:

http://www.slideshare.net/QixCoin/quix-coin-1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300160.0

Seems to be some question about the spelling and I'm not sure anything was actually implemented. Pretty obscure reference by Nick.




I'd also like to know about this mysterious QuixCoin.  The only search I found led me to here. hahaha

If it can be digitized, it should be decentralized
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 03:05:34 PM
 #19477

It seems our divinely inspired inflation machine is still doing what it does best. Brilliant investment!

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

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 04:39:25 PM
 #19478


I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.

You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 

The spv verify opcode looks to me like to me to be in the class of a generically useful inclusions which anyone is free to use for a variety of developments or optimizations of existing developments.

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

I'm sure we are going to hear howls of rage from you if/when there is call for a hard-fork to raise the transaction rate cap because someone involved in Bitcoin dev might also have involvement in a tangential effort which might benefit by increased transaction rates.  Right?

A reasonable hypothesis explaining the resistance to sidechains is that the failure of crufty old Satoshi-esque code and ad-hoc unencapsulated network transport is actually a very desirable thing to some and the trajectory of their strategy depends on it.  Sidechains could extend the life expectancy of ad-hoc collection of unencumbered organic solutions.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
 #19479


I suspect most people who have been trolling Adam and the sidechain developers have ulterior motives. They probably either hold large Alt coin hoards, are part of alt coin development teams or have other vested interests that the sidechain project would directly compete with/make redundant.

You can't lump me into this generalization. Anyone who had followed this thread for the mere 3.5 years of its existence knows I'm an altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 hater as I believe they're sucking badly needed capital away from Bitcoin temporally. Doesn't mean  I don't think they have a right to compete fairly by not bring able to change Bitcoins source code. 

The spv verify opcode looks to me like to me to be in the class of a generically useful inclusions which anyone is free to use for a variety of developments or optimizations of existing developments.

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

I'm sure we are going to hear howls of rage from you if/when there is call for a hard-fork to raise the transaction rate cap because someone involved in Bitcoin dev might also have involvement in a tangential effort which might benefit by increased transaction rates.  Right?

A reasonable hypothesis explaining the resistance to sidechains is that the failure of crufty old Satoshi-esque code and ad-hoc unencapsulated network transport is actually a very desirable thing to some and the trajectory of their strategy depends on it.  Sidechains could extend the life expectancy of ad-hoc collection of unencumbered organic solutions.



fundamentally, none of the technical enhancements to Bitcoins money function couldn't be done on the MC.  not easy to gain consensus but it CAN be done.  i'm all for that.  this is what we have testnet and federated server SC's for.  experimentation.  esp when we're only at the $4B market cap.

it also looks like CP and colored coins will bring us other assets to MC.  that's good too.

about 90%+ of satoshi's code has been rewritten.  we ARE seeing steady improvements to the code like the recent 0.1 with 3h MC download times now.  that's an extraordinary improvement of about 10x.  i put up that link of that Seagate 8TB SSD the other day.  storage is outpacing MC growth and now costs $0.03/GB.  i'm actually quite satisfied with where we are even now.  with a few, or even one, tx hop one can have provable deniability for anonymity reasons if they want.  10 min block times isn't conceptually ideal but works perfectly well for me.  i'm not sure what all the complaining is about.

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

fundamentally, i think allowing an offramp for BTC units over to insecure SC's is economically and technically flawed for all the Sound Money reasons i've already articulated.

improve the MC; it's not that hard.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 05:23:28 PM
 #19480

Do you suppose that anyone involved with Bitcoin dev had any ideas or involvement in efforts which could have made use pay-to-script-hash when it was integrated?  I don't remember you pitching a bitch about that.

yes, b/c p2sh is how multi-sig tx's get constructed.  that is a fundamental MC security improvement that all of us benefit from.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1022 1023 1024 ... 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!