Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 10:13:51 PM *
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 ... 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 1027 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009501 times)
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 10:33:42 AM
 #19521

4. If Bitcoin fails to scale then I-Can-Scale-Coin will incorporate the necessary changes and the ecosystem will move across to that alt instead. Sidechains do not help with scaling because SC volume still needs to be handled somewhere.

It can be that different security and assurances are required for different uses.  You could probably afford to lose the price of a cup of coffee.  Eg imagine pettycoin on a sidechain.  It has sharded validation.  He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.  I really dont think you want that on the main chain because its weaker, and he cut down a lot of bitcoin features to get it.  But its useful.

Quote from: adam3us link=topic=68655.msg10015436#msg10015436
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.

You probably for now dont want any of those things on the main chain if and until someone can firewall them in the chain or prove very robustly that they work.

If bitcoin rejects such things, it maybe that innovation moves to alts.  That would be a sad day to me because I think it could be the end of bitcoin and even cryptocurrency period as a store of value anyway.

Quote from: adam3us link=topic=68655.msg10014202#msg10014202
Quote from: JorgeStolfi on January 02, 2015, 02:47:31 PM
 Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

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

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

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

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

or the short tldr; twitter version:

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

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
1511129631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511129631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511129631
Reply with quote  #2

1511129631
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
 #19522

Quote
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.
Outsourcing, slave wages, sweat shops, child labor, and economic terrorism will always give you that capitalistic competitive edge. Make ASICs cheap! Destroy your competitors. Go USA!



ASIC are mostly made in China
Exactly my point. China will not always be the cheap labor market. Africa is China's China. I'm already thinking of ways to exploit sweatshops for PoS transaction processing. The Philippines has a lot of English speakers and they work cheap. Maybe if Bitcoin fails I can make it big with cheap staker sweatshops and farm them out. Muhuhaha!  Grin

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

Activity: 1498



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:41:23 AM
 #19523

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.
what you think the winklevii's motive is, or the rtf customers - that's opinion
How an ETF affects the price of an underlying asset - that's well understood.

Your post suggested that you didn't understand the latter, the search results I linked to explain it.

If lots of people buy the etf and its price goes up then the BTC price gets driven up through arb, so yes buying the ETF does affect BTC

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
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:25:47 AM
 #19524

What do people think of this paper:
On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies
Nicolas T. Courtois
(Submitted on 2 May 2014 (v1), last revised 10 Dec 2014 (this version, v11))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0534

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 04, 2015, 11:35:07 AM
 #19525

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?

I said a few things about that and so did Greg on reddit (how we expect to make money).

Quote from: adam3us
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.

and

Quote from: adam3us
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
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.

Quote from: NewLiberty
If [blockstream profit plan] 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.

Before we closed the seed funding round there were people who wrote asking how to buy in (I think some of them were confused and thought it was a "hot" new alt-coin ICO they could get it on the "ground-level" of).  But also there were people who understood what a sidechain is.  We do have one bitcoiner (non VC, tho qualified investor) who is an investor, and a number of the investors own BTC also.  

What I said to people on twitter was "you dont need to buy into side-chains, you're already in, its called bitcoin"; well really we're invested in bitcoin & the value of stock representing a stake in our ability to profit as described above, but you get the point.

So for now I would buy more bitcoin Smiley  Also in the (mining) incentive section of the white paper there was a concept of a time-shifted fee.

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, 11:38:25 AM
 #19526

What do people think of this paper:
On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies
Nicolas T. Courtois
(Submitted on 2 May 2014 (v1), last revised 10 Dec 2014 (this version, v11))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0534


His arguments are not backed up by his own citations and the rhetoric got ahead of the facts.

He is a capable symmetric key cipher cryptographer, but he's been known to go on fact disconnected rants.  bitcoiners seem to  conclude he maybe thinks he'll get bitcoin consulting work if he claims the sky is falling in a loud voice.  Either that or he just enjoys ranting.

Apparently even academics can troll.  (Present company excepted of course Smiley

Adam

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

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:43:56 AM
 #19527

d to explain it.
If lots of people buy the etf and its price goes up then the BTC price gets driven up through arb, so yes buying the ETF does affect BTC

That is a non-trivial "if"...

What is it exactly that prevents those potential COIN buyers from buying BTC directly, or SMBIT shares?   The fact that they are not traded on an exchange like NASDAQ?  Or some intrinsic property of the asset?

Note that COIN shares will uninsured against theft or loss, besides being backed only by a "stock" (BTCs) that itself has no backing assets.

The Fortress investment group bought a bunch of BTC in 2013.  Those BTC were the only red stain in their Q1/2014 report.  So Fortress promptly swapped those BTC for equity in the Pantera Fund's managing company (not shares of the fund itself).  If COIN existed in 2013, and Fortress had bought COIN instead of BTC, the result would probably have been pretty much the same.

What I mean is that COIN may not be much more attractive to large investors than BTC itself.  Large investors are not likely to be impressed by a 5-year logscale plot with a red straight line on it.  In case you have not been paying attention, to people outside the bitcoin community bitcoin does not look like the financial miracle that it seemed to be 13 months ago.

And it is a fact that no one who has some money to spare believes that bitcoin will be worth 3000 $ in 2015.  Otherwise they would rush to buy those coins that are now being offered for sale at 290 $/BTC, and no one is buying.

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 04, 2015, 11:47:24 AM
 #19528

Quote from: adam3us
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 [bitcoin] 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.

i think that's wrong.  i view it as money. digital cash.  digital gold.  i think this is the biggest source of our disagreement.

I am not sure how "money. digital cash.  digital gold." != "virtual commodity which can be used as sound money"

Adam

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

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
 #19529

What do people think of this paper:
On The Longest Chain Rule and Programmed Self-Destruction of Crypto Currencies
Nicolas T. Courtois
(Submitted on 2 May 2014 (v1), last revised 10 Dec 2014 (this version, v11))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0534
His arguments are not backed up by his own citations and the rhetoric got ahead of the facts.

He is a capable symmetric key cipher cryptographer, but he's been known to go on fact disconnected rants.  Bitcoiners seem to  conclude he maybe thinks he'll get bitcoin consulting work if he claims the sky is falling in a loud voice.  Either that or he just enjoys ranting.

Indeed the paper had too much rhetoric and boldface for academic good taste.  But he points out flaws in some arguments that are commonly used to dismiss the risk of a 51% attack, e.g. that with cloud mining one could rent 51% of the power for 1 hour at much smaller cost than actually buying that much mining equipment.

I did not bother to read his proposed fix to the longest-chain rule because it seems to involve timestamping transactions, and I suspect that such thing is even harder to get right than achieving consensus about the chain.  I will wait until someone tells me that that section is worth reading.  Grin

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 04, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
 #19530

Indeed the paper had too much rhetoric and boldface for academic good taste.  But he points out flaws in some arguments that are commonly used to dismiss the risk of a 51% attack, e.g. that with cloud mining one could rent 51% of the power for 1 hour at much smaller cost than actually buying that much mining equipment.

Well there are three answers to that: a) cloud mining at scale on short contract is a bad idea; b) the cloud miner shouldnt rent out mining power to attack the chain any more than a country would rent out nukes to mentally unstable or psychopathic individuals; c) mining can be separated from voting, and some of the artificial centralisation reduced.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi
I did not bother to read his proposed fix to the longest-chain rule because it seems to involve timestamping transactions, and I suspect that such thing is even harder to get right than achieving consensus about the chain.  I will wait until someone tells me that that section is worth reading.  Grin

checkpoints are a bad idea, they are a form of centralisation.  Bitcoin is working to remove the limited very slow anti-DoS check pointing that it has.

Adam

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:05:27 PM
 #19531

I am not sure how "money. digital cash.  digital gold." != "virtual commodity which can be used as sound money"
He calls it Bitcoinium in another thread. He's creating a unicorn to describe the indescribable rather than use common analogies. He uses a fictitious omnipotent AI to describe the unicorn and calls it "common sense." From there it's reifications all the way down.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 12:11:26 PM
 #19532

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

you guys have to ask yourselves why they have so much power.  the answer, if you're reading this, is that you already know:  control of Money.

with Bitcoin, as it is, we are slowly taking back those reins of power.  and now, we are being asked to change Bitcoin into a SC-enabled asset trading platform? speculative asset trading is NOT needed and distracts us from Bitcoins main function:  Sound Money.

People already are speculating with BTC on cryptsy, havelock (BTC denominated shares), just they are doing it in a less safe way because its not on-chain.  Lets imagine gold or USD it was legally forbidden to use it for share trading, but share trading is very much legal.  Do you think share trading would happen or not?  Do you think that would be good for gold or the USD?

If share trading creates more BTC (or scBTC) transactions buying/selling with BTC, or paying transaction with BTC that increases utility and hence price of BTC.

Adam

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

Activity: 1498



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:15:03 PM
 #19533

d to explain it.
If lots of people buy the etf and its price goes up then the BTC price gets driven up through arb, so yes buying the ETF does affect BTC

That is a non-trivial "if"...

What is it exactly that prevents those potential COIN buyers from buying BTC directly, or SMBIT shares?   The fact that they are not traded on an exchange like NASDAQ?  Or some intrinsic property of the asset?

Note that COIN shares will uninsured against theft or loss, besides being backed only by a "stock" (BTCs) that itself has no backing assets.

The Fortress investment group bought a bunch of BTC in 2013.  Those BTC were the only red stain in their Q1/2014 report.  So Fortress promptly swapped those BTC for equity in the Pantera Fund's managing company (not shares of the fund itself).  If COIN existed in 2013, and Fortress had bought COIN instead of BTC, the result would probably have been pretty much the same.

What I mean is that COIN may not be much more attractive to large investors than BTC itself.  Large investors are not likely to be impressed by a 5-year logscale plot with a red straight line on it.  In case you have not been paying attention, to people outside the bitcoin community bitcoin does not look like the financial miracle that it seemed to be 13 months ago.

And it is a fact that no one who has some money to spare believes that bitcoin will be worth 3000 $ in 2015.  Otherwise they would rush to buy those coins that are now being offered for sale at 290 $/BTC, and no one is buying.

You said "But if they buy the COIN ETF it in now way effects Bitcoin price or ecosystem" i'm saying it would affect BTC price. (be that up or down) and  suggested there was plenty of stuff out there that explains why that is the case.

I didn't say it *was* going to go up - as you noticed I used the word if (just like you did). There are a thousand other threads debating whether the price will go up or down.I'm not arguing that it will, so I don't know why you are bring that up.

By using if there is an implicit assumption that the contrary is also true - *if* people all sell the ETF and the price goes down it will force the BTC price down through arb.

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
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:33:57 PM
 #19534

I didn't say it *was* going to go up - as you noticed I used the word if (just like you did). There are a thousand other threads debating whether the price will go up or down.I'm not arguing that it will, so I don't know why you are bring that up.

By using if there is an implicit assumption that the contrary is also true - *if* people all sell the ETF and the price goes down it will force the BTC price down through arb.

Indeed; my apologies for the undue reading of your post.

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 04, 2015, 12:37:59 PM
 #19535

I am not sure how "money. digital cash.  digital gold." != "virtual commodity which can be used as sound money"
He calls it Bitcoinium in another thread. He's creating a unicorn to describe the indescribable rather than use common analogies. He uses a fictitious omnipotent AI to describe the unicorn and calls it "common sense." From there it's reifications all the way down.

If readers want to look at that thread its https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=911339.0

(and reply to outahere is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=911339.msg10033502#msg10033502)

Adam

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

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:48:32 PM
 #19536

he points out flaws in some arguments that are commonly used to dismiss the risk of a 51% attack, e.g. that with cloud mining one could rent 51% of the power for 1 hour at much smaller cost than actually buying that much mining equipment.

Well there are three answers to that: a) cloud mining at scale on short contract is a bad idea; b) the cloud miner shouldnt rent out mining power to attack the chain any more than a country would rent out nukes to mentally unstable or psychopathic individuals; c) mining can be separated from voting, and some of the artificial centralisation reduced.

For (a), do you mean that short-time contracts are a bad idea for the client, or for the company that offers cloud mining?  In the first case it does not matter, the attacker will spend only ~75 BTC/h while running the attack.  In the second case, the attacker could rent for the minimum period allowed by the company, mine honestly for most of that time (thus presumably recovering most or more of the rent paid),  and launch the attack during one hour.

For (b), how could the cloud mining companies tell that some entity that already controls X% of the network's hashpower is now renting 51-X% from them? This entity could pretend to be N diferent clients.  And I bet that no company requires miners to undergo psychological fitness tests.  Cheesy

(By the way, I like to think of Dr. Strangelove as a rather bland documentary.  Countries already put their nukes in control of mentally unstable or psychopathic individuals.  Grin Tongue)

I suppose that (c) would require a substantial change in the bitcoin protocol, correct?

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 04, 2015, 12:58:57 PM
 #19537

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?

Because the federated peg is a protocol adaptor - it translates the hash majority decision of the sidechain into something bitcoin can understand.  It's not obvious, but it is the case that issued assets on the sidechain will already have full node security (up to the MM hashrate, and immune from any take-all coins attacks).  For the purposes of issued asset trading, the sidechain works fine in this model, if we assume trade is issued - issued crosses; for that use pegged bitcoin is just transaction fees.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
jonny1000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 01:32:11 PM
 #19538

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."


This is an interesting point, Sidechains appear to represent a form of competition with Bitcoin as a distributed consensus mechanism or transaction system.  The question is should Bitcoin try to defend against this competition or recognize that competition is a good thing and try to encourage it by making changes which could make Sidechains possible, as this type of competition is unlikely to be prevented in the long run anyway and if Bitcoin is to succeed it should do so because it is the best system.  I am genuinely undecided as to what the best or most logical response from Bitcoin is.  Bitcoin already has a lot of competition and I have tried to analyze the competitive landscape below:

Analysis of Bitcoin's Competitive Landscape - (For Financial Transactions)

SystemExamplesbitcoin unitChances of successIf Bitcoin losses in the long term
Traditional SystemsPaypal, Credit Cards, SWIFT, CHAPSNoThese systems are already dominantNo significant impact, Bitcoin could continue as a niche system
Off Chain transactionsCoinbase, Changetip, MT Gox, CircleYesUnlikely to offer significant advantages over Traditional Systems in the long runPotentially catastrophic for both Bitcoin and Off Chain Transaction companies.  Security on Bitcoin could fall as mining incentives could be low, whilst the incentive to attack could increase.  At the same time off chain credit expansion could occur, undermining the monetary policy of Bitcoin.
Alt Coins - Bitcoin clonesLitecoin, DogecoinNoUnlikely to offer significant advantages over Bitcoin in the long runNo significant impact, Bitcoin could continue as a niche system
Alternative consensus mechanismsPeercoin (Proof of Stake), BitShares (Delegated Proof of Stake), TendermintNoCompetition is interesting and these type of alternatives could eventually succeedNo significant impact, Bitcoin could continue as a niche system
SidechainsBlockstreamYesUnlikely to offer significant advantages over alternative consensus mechanisms in the long run, except the use of bitcoin the currency could be an advantage in obtaining users and providing an early incentive to hack/test the systemPotentially catastrophic for both Bitcoin and Sidechains.  Security on Bitcoin could fall as mining incentives could be low, whilst the incentive to attack Bitcoin could increase.  The inherent value of bitcoin could be under threat, as one could do trust-less financial transactions in bitcoin without needing to spend bitcoin in fees
Layers on top of BitcoinCounterparty, Colored Coins, MastercoinNoSuccess likely to depend on Bitcoin's successBitcoin the system and bitcoin the currency cannot lose in this scenario.  The success of these systems imply high transaction volume and high demand for bitcoin to be used as transaction fees.  Bitcoin wins in this scenario


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.

Counterparty transactions are just as valid or invalid as any other transactions.  Proof of existence transactions, drug deal transactions, gambling transactions, Counterparty transactions, transactions containing a Times Newspaper headline from 2009, "genuine" online shopping transactions or "fake" transactions created to increase transaction volume and dishonestly attract Venture Capital funding for a project are all just transactions.  Once people start to evaluate the merit of the data and say they are just bloat, the validity of the system begins to break down.  This is analogous to the Net Neutrality debate.   Counterparty pay the fee just like anyone else.  The success of Counterparty will create demand for bitcoin, which is required for every single action in Counterparty to pay transaction fees for miners.  Systems like Counterparty therefore add value to the Bitcoin ecosystem and bitcoin the currency.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 01:53:57 PM
 #19539

he points out flaws in some arguments that are commonly used to dismiss the risk of a 51% attack, e.g. that with cloud mining one could rent 51% of the power for 1 hour at much smaller cost than actually buying that much mining equipment.

Well there are three answers to that: a) cloud mining at scale on short contract is a bad idea; b) the cloud miner shouldnt rent out mining power to attack the chain any more than a country would rent out nukes to mentally unstable or psychopathic individuals; c) mining can be separated from voting, and some of the artificial centralisation reduced.

For (a), [...] the attacker could rent for the minimum period allowed by the company, mine honestly for most of that time (thus presumably recovering most or more of the rent paid),  and launch the attack during one hour.

This is why it is dangerous for the mining company: they are sitting on $100m worth of equipment, on-demand renting it is dangerous to the network and to the hope of making a profit on their $100m investment.

Quote
For (b), how could the cloud mining companies tell that some entity that already controls X% of the network's hashpower is now renting 51-X% from them? This entity could pretend to be N diferent clients.  And I bet that no company requires miners to undergo psychological fitness tests.  Cheesy

Again a reason they should not do it.

Whichever way you look at it renting out cloud mining is a bad idea because the reason to care about the meta-incentives (of bitcoins security, reputation, functionality etc) is lost - the $100m investment.

The solution is to sell mining contracts so that the user actually owns the equipment, and often has also prepaid for the electricity as well.  Its flash on-demand renting that is bad as then there is no investment incentive.

This is actually part of the meta-incentive: a cloud miner should be able to forsee the problems of flash renting and realise as the equipment owner his capital is at risk.

Quote
I suppose that (c) would require a substantial change in the bitcoin protocol, correct?

No its possible today.  Luke-jr is working on it.  Thats for the reverse problem that when you do buy a (long term) mining contract, you should control the vote.  Otherwise we get articificial centralisation where the location of the physical mining data center artificially controls other peoples votes.

Adam

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

Activity: 2324


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 02:15:23 PM
 #19540


Just for the record, I did not produce the ascribed text (though I agree with it.)  Also, kudos for taking the time to use tables to make a point more clearly.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1027 ... 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!