Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 04:28:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1026 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995983 times)
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:32:34 AM
 #19501

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

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || 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
1508430494
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508430494

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508430494
Reply with quote  #2

1508430494
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:35:53 AM
 #19502

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

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:42:01 AM
 #19503

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".


tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:55:35 AM
 #19504

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.

Fukishima suffered such catastrophic damage because it was not built to withstand a sizeable force like a tsunami.. The company that built the plant, I believe, was the same one from TM island where there engineering was also shoddy. iirc, the fukishima companys mistake was not to build the sea wall high enough or strong enough or something like that. They were aware of the potential for this oversight to be dangerous but did nothing to fix it, because money. see gregpalast.com or his book 'Vultures' for evidence/further clarification. very damning read.
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 02:29:13 AM
 #19505

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
Huh
They already own the bitcoins they want to unload and collect a management fee to "securely" hold them.  Buyers of that ETF are not Bitcoin buyers or people interested in Bitcoin ecosystem.  They are traders of IOUs.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 02:52:49 AM
 #19506

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

multiple reasons:  economic (risks sound money function by encouraging speculative asset trading on SC's inside the Bitcoin system), technical (depends on a miner gratuity of 100% MM to be as safe as Bitcoin), fairness aka conflict of interest (5 devs in same for profit can "block" altcoin op_codes and even improvements to Bitcoin Core if a threat to SC business)
Quote
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?

i'd like to see any improvements to Bitcoin be done on MC with testing on federated servers or on Testnet
Quote
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".



hard to evaluate what ifs.  i'm not opposed to innovation, just do it on MC.  
one thing these guys haven't explained is how does one evaluate success of a SC innovation when the conditions can never be exactly those that exist on MC?  price?  lack of attacks?  #users?  market cap?
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 02:55:31 AM
 #19507

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.

Thanks, that is one more good reason to believe that those accidents were not caused by flaws in the physics of nuclear fusion.  Grin

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

Activity: 2296


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:03:09 AM
 #19508

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.

Fukishima suffered such catastrophic damage because it was not built to withstand a sizeable force like a tsunami..

Wrong-ish.  The backup power generators were flooded and the fuel tanks for them washed away because nobody thought a tsunami of this magnitude was worth considering.  Not long before the event some archaeologists found evidence of periodic tsunamis of this magnitude and scheduled a meeting.  Tokyo Electric was invited but didn't bother to attend.

I, as something of a supporter of nuclear power at the time believed they hype that an accident of this type was not possible and that loss of electrical power would result in a safe shutdown.  Turns out that these old GE reactors (of which we have plenty here in the U.S.) are actually guaranteed to suffer core meltdown if electrical power is not available.

One thing I already knew is that nuclear plants are far more devastating that nuclear bombs.  This because a bomb (or warhead or whatever) must be transportable and is thus relatively small.  A nuclear power plant has many times more material available to contaminate things.  In brilliant designs like the old GE plants store several loads of spent rods on the roof of the building for convenience for the multiple years it takes the spent rods to cool down.  If they are not constantly underwater (in pools in the upper parts of the building) they will catch fire and the multitude of reaction isotopes will be vaporized do drift wherever the wind happens to be going.

Anyone worried about 'terrorism' should be plenty concerned about our nuclear facilities.  Fortunately the 'terrorist threat' is an almost completely invented by our government to terrorize us sheep so there probably isn't all that much to worry about except for natural disasters and incompetence.

The company that built the plant, I believe, was the same one from TM island where there engineering was also shoddy.

Nope.  TMI was a Babbcock & Wilcox pressurized water design.  An amazing series of bad luck led to it's partial melt-down, but the POV valve one of the biggies and was known defective.  As usual, it was not known to the right sets of people.

iirc, the fukishima companys mistake was not to build the sea wall high enough or strong enough or something like that. They were aware of the potential for this oversight to be dangerous but did nothing to fix it, because money. see gregpalast.com or his book 'Vultures' for evidence/further clarification. very damning read.

One interesting thing about TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima is that the operators could stare right at giant problems and simply not believe their eyes.  Some combination of high levels of indoctrination about the impossibility of a disaster, and the subconscious recognition of what a disaster a disaster actually is and consequent unwillingness to accept reality.

I wonder if the same thing could happen in crypto-currency-land...


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:08:35 AM
 #19509

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

Bitcoin is successful precisely because of the arrangement of the incentives that make it a practical Store of Value.

What is at risk is the value secured by the existing incentive structure.

Your paper illustrated a mechanism to secure one's private key and the Bitcoin that are controlled by those keys, while allowing the value stored and secured by the Bitcoin incentive scheme to move onto a SideChain that has a new incentive structure, say one more favorable to the present economic elite.

Spv-multisig is undesirable as there is no central authority. When If a spv-multisig or decentralized proof exists in the Bitcoin protocol, it will changes the existing Bitcoin incentive scheme.

Some obvious SC's that could emerge are a PoS Bitcoin, with a fixed convention 2wp or a MM blockchain optimized to handle many magnitudes more transactions. In both theses examples there will be new revenue opportunities to validate transactions.

The miners or stake holders will have a new incentive to process transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain, this change in incentives will allow for new economic manipulation, and because Bitcoin is designed to disenfranchis (disempower) miners with diminishing returns, the resulting competition and market driven transaction costs will not materialize in the Bitcoin system but be subverted by a viable SideChain, (I believe it is possible to even engine this outcome)

The lickly outcome will not be a Bitcoin innovation but a alternate set of economic incentives and a more secure and predictable income for miners or stake holders, the net result is lickly to leave the incentive structure in Bitcoin improperly secured, and Bitcoin to lose its Master Chain status.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:32:20 AM
 #19510

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.

Fukishima suffered such catastrophic damage because it was not built to withstand a sizeable force like a tsunami..

Wrong-ish.  The backup power generators were flooded and the fuel tanks for them washed away because nobody thought a tsunami of this magnitude was worth considering.  Not long before the event some archaeologists found evidence of periodic tsunamis of this magnitude and scheduled a meeting.  Tokyo Electric was invited but didn't bother to attend.

I, as something of a supporter of nuclear power at the time believed they hype that an accident of this type was not possible and that loss of electrical power would result in a safe shutdown.  Turns out that these old GE reactors (of which we have plenty here in the U.S.) are actually guaranteed to suffer core meltdown if electrical power is not available.

One thing I already knew is that nuclear plants are far more devastating that nuclear bombs.  This because a bomb (or warhead or whatever) must be transportable and is thus relatively small.  A nuclear power plant has many times more material available to contaminate things.  In brilliant designs like the old GE plants store several loads of spent rods on the roof of the building for convenience for the multiple years it takes the spent rods to cool down.  If they are not constantly underwater (in pools in the upper parts of the building) they will catch fire and the multitude of reaction isotopes will be vaporized do drift wherever the wind happens to be going.

Anyone worried about 'terrorism' should be plenty concerned about our nuclear facilities.  Fortunately the 'terrorist threat' is an almost completely invented by our government to terrorize us sheep so there probably isn't all that much to worry about except for natural disasters and incompetence.

The company that built the plant, I believe, was the same one from TM island where there engineering was also shoddy.

Nope.  TMI was a Babbcock & Wilcox pressurized water design.  An amazing series of bad luck led to it's partial melt-down, but the POV valve one of the biggies and was known defective.  As usual, it was not known to the right sets of people.

iirc, the fukishima companys mistake was not to build the sea wall high enough or strong enough or something like that. They were aware of the potential for this oversight to be dangerous but did nothing to fix it, because money. see gregpalast.com or his book 'Vultures' for evidence/further clarification. very damning read.

One interesting thing about TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima is that the operators could stare right at giant problems and simply not believe their eyes.  Some combination of high levels of indoctrination about the impossibility of a disaster, and the subconscious recognition of what a disaster a disaster actually is and consequent unwillingness to accept reality.

I wonder if the same thing could happen in crypto-currency-land...



Fukushima was designed, built and contracted to be rebuilt by Shaw Construction, an iteration of Stone & Webster.

The Seismic Qualification tests at Fukushima were also fudged.

My recollection was that the strength of the earthquake at Fukushima wasn't anywhere near the 9.0 reported at the epicenter, but I could be way misguided saying that.

http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew/


But there's no doubt that the inability to recognise possible disaster is in crypto land Smiley)
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:48:25 AM
 #19511

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



It looks like I'm seeing BTC/USD in the future Shocked

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.
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:53:06 AM
 #19512

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

It looks like I'm seeing BTC/USD in the future Shocked
The funny thing is that the BTC/USD curve does look like that, except for two extra "mini-bubbles" added to it (the one starting ~2014-05-20, and another one starting ~2014-11-04. 

May be a sign that these two mini-bubbles were generated outside China, perhaps?  LTC seems to be largely a Chinese thing.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 04:11:52 AM
 #19513

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".
Money substitutes will be created. They will not be as good as Bitcoin, unless they are a new currency we should switch to instead of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin development can continue in a way that makes money substitutes less necessary and attractive (improved scalability to enable higher transaction rates, more economically robust P2P network model), or Bitcoin could intentionally cede the field to the money substitutes in the mistaken belief that it's possible for Bitcoin survive that way.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 04:48:20 AM
 #19514

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

Yes every white paper I've read in this space is garbage with the exception of Satoshi and the SC one (but note I havent analyzed SC paper fully yet).  However Cypherdoc to answer your question directly, CS is not an experimental science so you would not see the kind of study you propose.  In fact that is an indicator of poor thought.  You should be looking for an algorithmic proof similar to a mathematical proof.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 04:52:53 AM
 #19515

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

It looks like I'm seeing BTC/USD in the future Shocked
The funny thing is that the BTC/USD curve does look like that, except for two extra "mini-bubbles" added to it (the one starting ~2014-05-20, and another one starting ~2014-11-04. 

That's exactly what I said the last time LTC charts were posted. I got blasted with "LTC is down more than BTC"

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:07:37 AM
 #19516


Fukushima was designed, built and contracted to be rebuilt by Shaw Construction, an iteration of Stone & Webster.

The Seismic Qualification tests at Fukushima were also fudged.

My recollection was that the strength of the earthquake at Fukushima wasn't anywhere near the 9.0 reported at the epicenter, but I could be way misguided saying that.

http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew/


But there's no doubt that the inability to recognise possible disaster is in crypto land Smiley)

The reactors themselves were the ubiquitous GE boiling water design.  Of course all kinds of other design goes into building a plant complex...including arrangement and situation of backup power.  I thought I remembered one of the Japanese heavy industry corps (Mitsubishi or some such) playing a role here but don't recall the details.  I did read some article about various malfeasance in construction and it may well have been one of Palast's stories.

Anyway, the earthquake did not cause the disaster, and probably did not really even contribute to it.  I have zero doubt that a lot of stuff was faked including the seismic stuff, but that didn't lead to the disaster.  It could well have resulted in damage which would have made it difficult to re-start if it would not have blown sky high.  Daichi was the one which had meltdowns and spent fuel pool issues, but Daini down the coast also had some severe problems.  Daichi was so interesting that not much attention was paid to Daini.  Not sure if the problems there were seismic in nature or power related or both.  I've been meaning to follow up on that but we have yet to reach a point where decent information is available.

One of the more interesting things was that reactor #3 (the one which blew sky high) was burning 'MOX' fuel.  There is almost no reason to do so unless one wants an excuse to fuck around with plutonium, and almost no reason to fuck around  with plutonium unless one has a nuclear weapons program.  My theory is that there is really not much reason to have a domestic nuclear energy program at all unless it is in support of a nuclear weapons program.  As poor in resources as Japan is they may be an exception, but it is also the case that Japan (like Iran) would be fools not to have a nuclear weapons capability given the existential threats that they face.

I was watching like a hawk when the facilities started to go.  When reactor #1 went I could tell it was a hydrogen explosion.  When #3 went I could tell right away it was NOT a hydrogen explosion.  It is still unclear what exactly blew up but whatever it was left fuel rod assemblies scattered about.  Probably a fuel pool is my best guess, but it could also have been the reactor or a #4's pool(s).  I always argued that an explosion of a pool was the best thing that could happen as it would have resulted in relatively large fragments of nuclear waste rather than it all being atomized as smoke.  I (seemingly alone) wonder if it was not blown up on purpose.  I remember a mystery barge of U.S. origin dropping something off then hauling ass.  They said it was 'water'.


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 05:30:58 AM
 #19517

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

multiple reasons:  economic (risks sound money function by encouraging speculative asset trading on SC's inside the Bitcoin system), technical (depends on a miner gratuity of 100% MM to be as safe as Bitcoin), fairness aka conflict of interest (5 devs in same for profit can "block" altcoin op_codes and even improvements to Bitcoin Core if a threat to SC business)

1) I'd aver that the MM makes it less safe rather than "as safe as", given the competitive nature of the offering - for both SC and MC.
2) That there is no other mining code other than what these core devs have custody, with significant % of operations, enhances the gravity of the COI issue.

Quote
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?

i'd like to see any improvements to Bitcoin be done on MC with testing on federated servers or on Testnet
Quote
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".
hard to evaluate what ifs.  i'm not opposed to innovation, just do it on MC.  
one thing these guys haven't explained is how does one evaluate success of a SC innovation when the conditions can never be exactly those that exist on MC?  price?  lack of attacks?  #users?  market cap?
I'd evaluate #of transactions, mining fees generated, and # of BTC moved to the SC as primary indicators.
I am curious about how Blockstream get paid out though, just consultant fees for dev time?  If it is something more arcane, it may be a cartel worthy of investing in, just in case they are able to run away with all the marbles.

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
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
 #19518

Ltc is silver its more volatile than bitcoin or gold

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:45:50 AM
 #19519

One of the more interesting things was that reactor #3 (the one which blew sky high) was burning 'MOX' fuel.  There is almost no reason to do so unless one wants an excuse to fuck around with plutonium, and almost no reason to fuck around  with plutonium unless one has a nuclear weapons program.  My theory is that there is really not much reason to have a domestic nuclear energy program at all unless it is in support of a nuclear weapons program.  As poor in resources as Japan is they may be an exception, but it is also the case that Japan (like Iran) would be fools not to have a nuclear weapons capability given the existential threats that they face.

The MOX fuel in #3 was provided by AREVA, the (semi-State?) French nuclear energy company.  France has a spent fuel reprocessing facility, in Normandy or Bretagne IIRC. 

IIRC Japan also has a reprocessing program, started not long ago, which has already had a minor incident.

In the 1970s the nuclear industry and/or the NRC sponsored a detailed study of the risks of nuclear accidents.  They evaluated all the possible paths of failure through the thousands of components of a nuclear plant, and concluded that the risk was negligible, less than one major accident per century or so, among all the reactors in the word.  Yet Fukushima had FOUR major accidents, one after the other.  The first three of them much worse than the accidents considered in the study -- and the fourth one was not even loaded with fuel...

In the 1980s NASA asked for a similar study of the risk of loss of a Space Shuttle.  After careful analysis of all paths etc etc they concluded that it was less than 1 in 100'000 launches.  The empirical number was about 1 every 50.

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

Activity: 2296


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 07:54:40 AM
 #19520

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

Bitcoin is successful precisely because of the arrangement of the incentives that make it a practical Store of Value.

What is at risk is the value secured by the existing incentive structure.

Justusranvier says that it is 'econ 101' that mining reward will fall to zero (and I say it's likely to dip below semi-regularly.)

If there is some other thing Justus is imaging which will incentivize entities to support Bitcoin, he didn't feel inclined to mention them and doesn't feel inclined to discuss them apparently.

Absent a more full explanation, I'd say things are just the opposite of 'incentives that make it a practical Store of Value', though I'd also say that it is not inconsistent with a pump-n-dump type of thing.

Your paper illustrated a mechanism to secure one's private key and the Bitcoin that are controlled by those keys, while allowing the value stored and secured by the Bitcoin incentive scheme to move onto a SideChain that has a new incentive structure, say one more favorable to the present economic elite.

Spv-multisig is undesirable as there is no central authority. When If a spv-multisig or decentralized proof exists in the Bitcoin protocol, it will changes the existing Bitcoin incentive scheme.

Some obvious SC's that could emerge are a PoS Bitcoin, with a fixed convention 2wp or a MM blockchain optimized to handle many magnitudes more transactions. In both theses examples there will be new revenue opportunities to validate transactions.

The miners or stake holders will have a new incentive to process transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain, this change in incentives will allow for new economic manipulation, and because Bitcoin is designed to disenfranchis (disempower) miners with diminishing returns, the resulting competition and market driven transaction costs will not materialize in the Bitcoin system but be subverted by a viable SideChain, (I believe it is possible to even engine this outcome)

The lickly outcome will not be a Bitcoin innovation but a alternate set of economic incentives and a more secure and predictable income for miners or stake holders, the net result is lickly to leave the incentive structure in Bitcoin improperly secured, and Bitcoin to lose its Master Chain status.

Actually, a sidechain backed by Bitcoin needs to have a functional Bitcoin in order to exercise peg operations (not to mention that it needs Bitcoin to remain trusted by the definition of 'backing'...at least unless it's trying to shoot the moon and supplant Bitcoin itself.)  To this extent every sidechain needs to support native Bitcoin even if it is not in and of itself profitable to do so.

I suggest that this mechanism of induced subsidization provides a more durable support framework than independent brute sha256 hashing and may even act to break up the mining pools which periodically grow to a size which causes discomfort associated with centralization.

 edit - back in 2011 I was calling sidechains 'child-chains'.  Had that label been chosen we could imagine children supporting their parent in the parent's old age...


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1026 ... 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!