Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:30:47 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806360 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 04:52:53 AM
 #19541

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"

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481221847
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221847

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221847
Reply with quote  #2

1481221847
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:07:37 AM
 #19542


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: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 05:30:58 AM
 #19543

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: 1302


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
 #19544

Ltc is silver its more volatile than bitcoin or gold
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:45:50 AM
 #19545

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 07:54:40 AM
 #19546

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...


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:52:31 AM
 #19547

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!


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

Activity: 1078


he who has the gold makes the rules


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 10:21:28 AM
 #19548

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

██████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
██████████████████████
|
WINGS
Where DAO Unicorns are born
|
.
1st Bitcoin & Ethereum DAO for DAOs                                               
1st Decentralized Chatbot to Smart Contracts Interaction System

|
.
Wings Bounties Earn Eggs    
X-Blockchain DAO

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 10:23:48 AM
 #19549

The SC's WP was disjointed to me. On the one hand, parts of it complain about alcoins, but them turns right around and gives a whole section to Freicoin, of all things. Talk about a screwed up economic policy. Adam even mentioned it again just the other day.  This tells me they are not on board with Bitcoins sound or hard money principles. Probably different guys on their team contributed different sections or thi  was a bone thrown to one of them. I seem to recall that Poelstra might be the one into demurrage.  

No Jorge Timon.  The section on demurrage as I recall was just an "it would be possible" in the section on possible incentives there were multiple others.

You could it turns out implement opt-in bitcoin denominated demurrage on a sidechain (or interest, or other things - ie the argument that you cant do economic model feature coins on a side-chain is also false; its just that the cost is entirely bourne by those who opted into it, so whatever interest or demurrage or additional inflation there is, is bourne by the people who opted-in), so that creates a disincentive to opt in.  

Btw a number of bitcoin exchanges have turned fractional (inflation) without disclosing it, and then gone under when it was discovered.  Same for some big poker companies - they were using customer stake to operate the company when market moved against them.  Moving more things on chain is a way to avoid those, and side-chains gives the developer part of the community the flexibility to move things on chain.   At least you can say a hypothetical side-chain with some unattractive economics wont be a surprise as it is with the normal way these failures happen, so you can avoid opting-in in the first place.  The most obvious unattractive economics is - the operator takes your bitcoin.

If you're interested in demurrage there's an economic theory by Gesell, the arguments for opting-in are actually complex.  Perhaps a topic for a freicoin thread.

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, 10:33:42 AM
 #19550

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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
 #19551

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: 1330



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:41:23 AM
 #19552

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

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"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: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:25:47 AM
 #19553

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
 #19554

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
 #19555

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: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:43:56 AM
 #19556

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
 #19557

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: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
 #19558

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
 #19559

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 12:05:27 PM
 #19560

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.
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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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