Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 10:14:49 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 ... 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 1028 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022377 times)
jonny1000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 02:23:56 PM
 #19541


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.



Sorry, I have changed this.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 02:57:53 PM
 #19542

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.)
I can't stop you from spreading misinformation, but I can point out when you're misquoting me.

I said the profitability of mining will approach zero over time, just like the profitability of every productive enterprise in a free market approaches zero over time.
TonyT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:00:15 PM
 #19543

I'm new to this thread.  Without reading all 989 pages of posts, can somebody summarize the prevailing Zeitgeist of this thread?

Shouldn't it read, "Bitcoin collapsing, Gold is steady"?

It reminds me, as a gold bug, of the 'collapse' in gold the last few years.  Since my average price is well below $1000 an ounce, I don't really care if it falls from its all time high, as I'm still above water.

Is it the same with most of you BTC holders?  Or did you buy at the peak?

TonyT

TonyT
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 03:01:02 PM
 #19544

You could probably afford to lose the price of a cup of coffee.
Bitcoin can not afford to have a billion people using a different currency/money substitutes to pay for their coffee.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:03:12 PM
 #19545

I'm new to this thread.  Without reading all 989 pages of posts, can somebody summarize the prevailing Zeitgeist of this thread?

Shouldn't it read, "Bitcoin collapsing, Gold is steady"?

It reminds me, as a gold bug, of the 'collapse' in gold the last few years.  Since my average price is well below $1000 an ounce, I don't really care if it falls from its all time high, as I'm still above water.

Is it the same with most of you BTC holders?  Or did you buy at the peak?

TonyT

Check the original post date for context.
My average cost per bitcoin is about 7 dollars and cypher's is probably even lower, so no many of us here are comfortably in the black.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:33:37 PM
 #19546


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.)

I can't stop you from spreading misinformation, but I can point out when you're misquoting me.

I said the profitability of mining will approach zero over time, just like the profitability of every productive enterprise in a free market approaches zero over time.

All I'm asking for is for you to bless us with a dab of your immense wisdom and expend a sentence of two explaining what provides support to Bitcoin when the profitability of mining falls to near zero.  Good will?  Hopium?  Magical crypto-flakes?

It's surprising to see an such an economic guru as yourself struggle so much here.  Or perhaps 'free markets' are overrated and not applicable as a support foundation for Bitcoin.  Certainly I could understand you preferring to remain mute about it if that's your thinking.


adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 03:38:15 PM
 #19547

You could probably afford to lose the price of a cup of coffee.
Bitcoin can not afford to have a billion people using a different currency/money substitutes to pay for their coffee.

No but it could afford to have one or two eg pettycoin connected over a 2wp, freeing up bitcoin main from sub $10 transactions.

It has sharded validation, its not an alt its a micropayment network bitcoin auxiliary chain.  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.

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

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 03:45:52 PM
 #19548

Adam,

If mtgox had had you design a SC for them, would you have structured a single specific SPVmtgox SC to which everyone would have sent their BTC (one address), then waited 2d for confirmation, before allowing those individuals to be assigned their own specific  scBTC to be traded p2p , all the while securing this SC with 100% MM?
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 04:07:55 PM
 #19549

If mtgox had had you design a SC for them, would you have structured a single specific SPVmtgox SC to which everyone would have sent their BTC (one address), then waited 2d for confirmation, before allowing those individuals to be assigned their own specific  scBTC to be traded p2p , all the while securing this SC with 100% MM?

The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 04:24:31 PM
 #19550

If mtgox had had you design a SC for them, would you have structured a single specific SPVmtgox SC to which everyone would have sent their BTC (one address), then waited 2d for confirmation, before allowing those individuals to be assigned their own specific  scBTC to be traded p2p , all the while securing this SC with 100% MM?

The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

Adam


But each SC has its own spvp (single address)  that everyone has to move through to the SC? In other words,  everyone has to send their BTC to that address and then are somehow going to receive individually assigned scBTC on the other side? 
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 04:28:19 PM
 #19551

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".

Seems to me you got the last word in there Smiley  Nicely put.

The time-locks is a great example because that actually exists already: micropayment channels, which provide micropayments with normal security, but the incremental payments are offchain.  There is another concept called a micropayment channel hub, which extends that idea.  Its also very simple Peter Todd explains it here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06576.html

one reason I think its an interesting example is it also has a time-preference in normal operation (though in that case any party can cash-in the balance at any time on the chain, though they have to start again for future tx, and setup a new time-lock).

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, 04:31:34 PM
 #19552

The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

But each SC has its own spvp (single address)  that everyone has to move through to the SC? In other words,  everyone has to send their BTC to that address and then are somehow going to receive individually assigned scBTC on the other side?  

So the spv peg transactions (which anyone can create at any time) includes a list of addresses and amounts to emerge on the sidechain, so that could be one user, or a group of users each contributing inputs a bit like CoinJoin.  However its going to be more efficient to use an arbitrageur or cross-chain atomic swap for all but large liquidity calls if the trade gets imbalanced.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 04:49:29 PM
 #19553

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:03:28 PM
 #19554

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh
*ahem*

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:09:59 PM
 #19555

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh
*ahem*


if he's confused, we're all in trouble.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:11:41 PM
 #19556

The point of moving transactions on-chain is that the user can then own their own coins, rather than delegating ownership to a third party like mtgox.

But each SC has its own spvp (single address)  that everyone has to move through to the SC? In other words,  everyone has to send their BTC to that address and then are somehow going to receive individually assigned scBTC on the other side?  

So the spv peg transactions (which anyone can create at any time) includes a list of addresses and amounts to emerge on the sidechain, so that could be one user, or a group of users each contributing inputs a bit like CoinJoin.  However its going to be more efficient to use an arbitrageur or cross-chain atomic swap for all but large liquidity calls if the trade gets imbalanced.

Adam


shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

picolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


🌟ATLANT ICO 24hr LEFT🌟


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:30:41 PM
 #19557

I'm new to this thread.  Without reading all 989 pages of posts, can somebody summarize the prevailing Zeitgeist of this thread?

Shouldn't it read, "Bitcoin collapsing, Gold is steady"?

It reminds me, as a gold bug, of the 'collapse' in gold the last few years.  Since my average price is well below $1000 an ounce, I don't really care if it falls from its all time high, as I'm still above water.

Is it the same with most of you BTC holders?  Or did you buy at the peak?

TonyT

There are no precise statistics about the number of people that bought higher than the current market price but you can assume it's now more than 50%.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
 #19558


shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

I would hope not.  I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it.  I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.

Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.

 edit - oops.  Missread 'its' blockchain.  I personally don't assume that all (or maybe even most) sidechains would have a blockchain and if these classes of sidechains do it would be an artificial thing needed to help integrate with and support the Bitcoin blockchain.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:36:29 PM
 #19559


shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

I would hope not.  I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it.  I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.

Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.



so what is the point of MM'ing the SC to begin with then?  isn't a blockchain (SC in this case) supposed to verify the integrity of what's going on?  might as well keep a secret ledger on a central server maintained by Karpeles.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 05:45:29 PM
 #19560


shouldn't the addresses and amounts that emerge onto SC be reflected/displayed/shown within its blockchain?

I would hope not.  I see no reason for it and a bunch of reasons to not have it.  I would like to see things be such that the native Bitcoin network neither knows about nor cares about nor is loaded in any way more than a sidechain being just another user.

Of course Bitcoin is an open network so various kinds of analysis could probably elucidate a lot about what users (individual and group proxys like a sidechain) might be up to.

so what is the point of MM'ing the SC to begin with then?  isn't a blockchain (SC in this case) supposed to verify the integrity of what's going on?  might as well keep a secret ledger on a central server maintained by Karpeles.

I think tvbcof is talking about privacy so eg if the sidechain is an implementation of zerocash its an opaque blob and all you know is the total balance and the number of tx/day.

You can hide locks on bitcoin with a simple change (thats what committed-tx does) so you dont know which bitcoin addresses are locked vs just idle.  

I think what tvbcof is saying as a requirement is it'd be nice if you didnt know how much was in the sidechain (cant distinguish locked from parked on mainchain).

But for the sidechain to accept that it has to know how much and have it proven.  That implies a pretty large snark proof of bitcoin blockchain.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1028 ... 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!