Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 10:29:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1025 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 910


Vegeta, What does the scouter say!?


View Profile
January 03, 2015, 11:44:41 PM
 #19481

Gold is a currency since the humanity existed.

Gold can't be equal to a 4-year-old-pumpanddump scam.

Btc is failing badly btw.
1513506581
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506581

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506581
Reply with quote  #2

1513506581
Report to moderator
1513506581
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506581

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506581
Reply with quote  #2

1513506581
Report to moderator
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513506581
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506581

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506581
Reply with quote  #2

1513506581
Report to moderator
1513506581
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513506581

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513506581
Reply with quote  #2

1513506581
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 11:50:52 PM
 #19482

hmm, I wonder if there are any of those left *scratches head* Wink

If the COIN ETF is approved, perhaps it will open a large market of private investors in the US (savings and retirement accounts, etc.) 

Latin America could be such a market, but there does not seem to be a population of commodities speculators like the Chinese one.  Africa has the same problem, and is much poorer than China.  India seems to be wary of bitcoin (perhaps by memories of Mavrodi's scams).

China may come back.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 03, 2015, 11:54:08 PM
 #19483

i have a question for the computer scientists in the crowd. 

i've noticed some things about the WP's over the last coupla years, including Satoshi's, that i wasn't aware of. first, there doesn't seem to be any peer review.  not only that but what strikes me is that it seems that authors come up with a particular logic pattern that makes sense to them and then construct maths to support that logic.  i often don't even see large data sets, testing, or simulations performed.  that supposedly is a standard for proof of a theory.  is this correct?  this is not a criticism of the CS field but just an inquiry to help me understand your field.

in many fields, a hypothesis is asked, then an experiment with blinded investigators along with large #'s of subjects and controls is carried out over a statistically significant time period to rule out investigator bias (can never do that completely) and prove that the hypothesis is correct within a std dev often of p<0.05 or 5%.  i realize these are different methods in different fields so it's hard to determine which is more rigorous.

These sorts of crypto "white papers" are not really academic papers at all. They are marketing for a piece of software (perhaps still under development). They vary in presentation from somewhat academic to not academic at all, but at their core they are entirely different in goals and methodology as you explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper#In_business-to-business_.28B2B.29_marketing
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 03, 2015, 11:58:20 PM
 #19484

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.

Its not clear why you think adding an spv-multisig is worse than multisig or IOUs with offchain holdings (as most exchanges are doing).  That seems reversed to me.  What does it put at risk?

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 04, 2015, 12:03:17 AM
 #19485

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.

True someone could make a hostile sidechain.  But so can people make hostile multisigs (eg freeze your coins and extort you a % of them to get them back), obviously IOU offchain we've seen no-end of offchain things be scams, thefts, or incompetence failures.  Or they could make defective wallets (thats happened a number of times also).

The solution as with everything else with bitcoin is understand what you're doing and/or use software that is signed, on machines without malware, and from people who are competent.  If you cant tell ask someone more competent (not you, but the general novice user).  I wrote about that here:

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.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
chaoman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:04:41 AM
 #19486

Gold is a currency since the humanity existed.

Gold can't be equal to a 4-year-old-pumpanddump scam.

Btc is failing badly btw.

Since primitive people were using gold as currency we should too? Technology develops and we the people need to change along with it or get left behind. BTC is the future, if you dont have that inkling in your mind then why are you here?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:14:25 AM
 #19487

Not sure whats up with bitcoin price

Most likely I think it is just the continued unwinding of China speculation, which took things beyond where system maturity and adoption could really support.

However, if you look at the most recent leg down, it coincides fairly well with the Blockstream announcements. It is possible that the market is responding poorly to this whole business, maybe not side chains themselves as CD suggests, but the idea of several of the top developers being aggregated under a single for-profit umbrella. It just is not good (in terms of perceptions if nothing else) for the role of the system as a neutral open source platform.

Yes it is good that developers have commercial support to work on the core, but neutrality would be served better by the developers getting their support from a more widely dispersed set of interests.



mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 910


Vegeta, What does the scouter say!?


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:23:02 AM
 #19488

Gold is a currency since the humanity existed.

Gold can't be equal to a 4-year-old-pumpanddump scam.

Btc is failing badly btw.

Since primitive people were using gold as currency we should too? Technology develops and we the people need to change along with it or get left behind. BTC is the future, if you dont have that inkling in your mind then why are you here?

I am not saying btc is bad. Just dont compare it to gold... It doesn't make any sense. Btc has so many flaws and until those big flaws get fixed, gold simply wins.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:25:28 AM
 #19489

Yes it is good that developers have commercial support to work on the core, but neutrality would be served better by the developers getting their support from a more widely dispersed set of interests.

Don't leave us hanging in the wind like that. What types of interests do you have in mind?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:32:54 AM
 #19490

About cypherdoc particularly he said this:

Quote from: cypherdoc link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9989162#msg9989162
Quote from: adam3us
I am not sure if you are aware sidechains are nearly possible with zero changes to bitcoin.  Its already programable via the script language.  It may even be doable with zero changes with some chained contorted big script to validate compact SPV proofs.

great, then do it if it doesn't involve a source code change.  i have no problem with that.


So that seems a little inconsistent to me.  ie if this is really a bad idea why would cypherdoc not have a problem with it regardless of whether it required changes or not.  I mean if its a principle you'd be arguing to please not do it even though its possible.  Or to remove something from the language to prevent it, or put a technical defense preventing it if such a thing existed (seems unlikely but I havent explored it much).  Not saying "I have no problem with that."

if you can implement spvp based SC's w/o a source code change, then i can't stop that.  i might not like it or agree with the principle but that's where the "I have no problem with that" comes from.  tho from everyone's understanding and the WP, you need the spvp obtained via a source code change.  what's important to protect, for me, is the mining and investment assumptions that are based on the current code as it stands. if what you say is true about you being able to implement SC's w/o any source code changes, presumably the market has already factored that into the price and i wasn't aware of that and can't argue with that.  but if you do have to change source code specifically to accomplish what you want, then i do know for sure the market will have to adjust to that new information.  the effects of that will be unpredictable in my mind and upset certainly my assumption of how the source code was never supposed to change to allow a for-profit company to benefit.  i know you say it's generic but you do have a head start in this area along with 5 devs and should establish a monopoly quickly by my estimation.  that is, if the idea and concept works.  which as you already know, i have my doubts.  
Quote
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.

While its possible, its very much harder, and when changes are made its very much riskier and less secure.  If you care about the security of your coins you should be for having a firewalled live beta and firewalled extension mechanism (if you support improvements "i'm all for that." you said).

it's not the improvements proposed for SC's that i worry about.  it's about speculators like Truthcoin who not only proposes all sorts of assets but also a altcoin (TC) which will ride on the SC.  
Quote

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

CP = CounterParty.  That doesnt bring anything to the chain, other than bloat, its a layered consensus system with its own alt-coin.  If you valued the price of bitcoin, probably you'd be better pushing for sidechains than CP because its bitcoin denominated and increases demand and features for bitcoin.


as i understand CP, it's just an embedded hash into a 40 byte op_return that originally was 80 bytes.  they were able to compensate so how is that a problem?
Quote
Quote from: cypherdoc
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.

No they spent more time on core than before, because they quit their full time jobs/occupation and Mark said somewhere else on reddit he figured they'd spent 50% of their time at blockstream on core.  (Unrelated to sidechains most of it .. eg in Pieter's case the headers-first speed up you were mentioning, though he's been working on that for a long time).  You could check by looking at bitcoin github, there's a stats page.

hmmm
Quote
Quote from: cypherdoc
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.

I fail to see the connection between sound money and an ability to freeze coins with an spv-multisig instead of a multisig.
Bitcoin is protected with a firewall from features on the sidechain.  The bitcoins never leave the chain, they're just frozen in an spv-multisig instead of a multisig.  Lots of people are using multisigs, daily, to effectively do the same thing, its more secure to do it with an spv-multisig.  Lots of people are not even doing that, they're using pure offchain in a shared wallet, for reasons that in time could be fixed on sidechains and then with a year of live testing with $1b on it kind of assurance, ported back into bitcoin main.


i know you've been saying they're equivalent for a while now but i see a difference.  multisig is currently used just for security purposes as in 2of3.  when necessary, the funds at those addresses can be mobilized immediately, no 2 day delay.  the p2sh used to facilitate these multisigs are not meant to reanimate scBTC on the other side of a 2wp as in your proposal.  with your 2wp (spvp), there is an entire "industry" awaiting on the other side of the 2wp that you wish to capitalize on.  i don't like the concept you used earlier of the BTC still being on the MC.  i see the 2wp as a "pass through" that reanimates those BTC into scBTC on a SC which then facilitates all sorts of speculation and trading of assets or even scCOINS like TC.  the SC's can be anything at all as you've described it and it's BS business plan to sell these newly designed and constructed SC's to willing buyers and maybe even gvt's as you've said.  i think that is risky.

and then there's the whole mining thing.  i'm not sure if you addressed some of my concerns above regarding attacks.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 12:38:20 AM
 #19491

However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result.  Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  Undecided
I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts.

So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all.  Perhaps.  But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain".  OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things?

My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer".

For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain?
They have a ledger but it isn't a block chain.


FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:42:35 AM
 #19492

However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result.  Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  Undecided
I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts.

So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all.  Perhaps.  But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain".  OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things?

My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer".

For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain?
They have a ledger but it isn't a block chain.



so why does the WP, Odalv, and Adam refer to these federated server models as an implementation of SC's?  which by my definition means involving a blockchain?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:50:38 AM
 #19493

Quote
Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima were not caused by flaws in the physics of nuclear fusion

all these power plants operate on the physics of nuclear fission ... nuclear fusion plants are non-existent.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:08:08 AM
 #19494

Quote
Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima were not caused by flaws in the physics of nuclear fusion

all these power plants operate on the physics of nuclear fission ... nuclear fusion plants are non-existent.

Correct.  The interesting thing is that all of the problems were all 'fixed' in the same way though.  Namely by papering them over and hoping that they can be ignored completely.  Worked like a champ in Fukushima since by that time a robust system of mass ignorance was well developed.

This is sorta like Justusranvier does with the 'econ 101' class observation that the reward to the sha256 miners will always approach zero...or more likely, overshoot it by a mile...


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:16:46 AM
 #19495

However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result.  Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  Undecided
I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts.

So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all.  Perhaps.  But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain".  OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things?

My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer".

For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain?
They have a ledger but it isn't a block chain.



so why does the WP, Odalv, and Adam refer to these federated server models as an implementation of SC's?  which by my definition means involving a blockchain?

I'm trying to explain you that computers can "do it". And if federated servers can "do it" then bitcoin-network can "do it" too.
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:23:20 AM
 #19496

hmm, I wonder if there are any of those left *scratches head* Wink

If the COIN ETF is approved, perhaps it will open a large market of private investors in the US (savings and retirement accounts, etc.) 

Latin America could be such a market, but there does not seem to be a population of commodities speculators like the Chinese one.  Africa has the same problem, and is much poorer than China.  India seems to be wary of bitcoin (perhaps by memories of Mavrodi's scams).
But if they buy the COIN ETF it in now way effects Bitcoin price or ecosystem.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:25:04 AM
 #19497

this can't be good.  there's a higher purpose:

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:32:34 AM
 #19498

hmm, I wonder if there are any of those left *scratches head* Wink

If the COIN ETF is approved, perhaps it will open a large market of private investors in the US (savings and retirement accounts, etc.) 

Latin America could be such a market, but there does not seem to be a population of commodities speculators like the Chinese one.  Africa has the same problem, and is much poorer than China.  India seems to be wary of bitcoin (perhaps by memories of Mavrodi's scams).
But if they buy the COIN ETF it in now way effects Bitcoin price or ecosystem.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+will+buying+coin+etf+affect+bitcoin+price

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:35:53 AM
 #19499

weekly all time LTC/USD chart.  really does not look good:

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:42:01 AM
 #19500

cypherdoc: it seems you are against side-chains on an economic principle rather than a specific technical implementation

Does this principle then extend to all other provably-backed (cryptographically-linked) bitcoin substitute tokens? And would you like to specify/define exactly what that principle is so that future technical improvements can be evaluated equally?

There are many new innovations to come that will achieve the same or similar results in principle to the side-chain conversion SPV 2wp, using multi-sig and time-locks, ZKP, etc ... are you going to be opposed to all these innovations also? (Hint: they will allow fast, off-chain, private settlement, or ttx bundling, with near zero-trust, i.e. blockchain level security and low costs).

I think that the economic principle of operation you seem to be vehemently opposed to is inevitable in some form or another. There will be token money substitutes that really will be cryptographically "as good as bitcoin", in a way that paper money substitutes were never "as good as gold".


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1025 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!