Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2017, 03:26:59 AM *
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 ... 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 1029 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1977649 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
 #19561


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.


1505964419
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505964419

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505964419
Reply with quote  #2

1505964419
Report to moderator
1505964419
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505964419

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505964419
Reply with quote  #2

1505964419
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1505964419
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505964419

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1505964419
Reply with quote  #2

1505964419
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:36:29 PM
 #19562


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
 #19563


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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:45:37 PM
 #19564


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 clarified a bit as an edit.

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.


adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 05:49:28 PM
 #19565

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

I guess I didnt understand what you meant then (I was thinking privacy).  Still not getting it.

Adam

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

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 05:52:14 PM
 #19566

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%.

picolo, TonyT, there are VERY precise statistics of exactly this (just not by "person", only by "bitcoin").  All of the data is in the block chain.  Anyone can see precisely when every bitcoin was last transferred.  There are also pretty good data on exchange rates to whatever your favorite currency is (if not bitcoin).  Every UTXO exists in a timestamped block.

Ratcliff has put together some nice area charts showing the age.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n205b/an_area_chart_showing_the_distribution_of/

So to answer your question, most bitcoin were last transferred at well under the current price.
(And this chart below only includes the last 4 years of transfers, older bitcoin are not included)

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 05:57:39 PM
 #19567


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 clarified a bit as an edit.

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.



none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC  Huh)
MarketNeutral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:00:42 PM
 #19568

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.

Permit me to quote myself from another thread.....

Quote
One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
 #19569

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.

Permit me to quote myself from another thread.....

Quote
One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.


this
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:07:24 PM
 #19570

One coin to rule them all:

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 06:08:11 PM
 #19571

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.

Permit me to quote myself from another thread.....

Quote
One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.


this

Also... (just about) every investment analyst talks their book.  They are trying to net some fees.  Until the ETF comes out, they are not in on any of the deals.  Once they get a cut of the trade, they can change their tune and start trying to shill for bitcoin instead of against it.

So in addition to unlocking a lot of potential investment fund, it unlocks the media, coopts them.

Face it, a single investor could pretty much buy the current bitcoin float on the exchanges.  It isn't though the unlocking of the funds is that big of a a deal.  But changing the investment news media tide is going to change a lot of minds and hearts.  Some of these may even bother to learn what bitcoin really is, and that is where it becomes a good thing.

As an engine for price manipulation the ETF is a monster, it can wreck massive damage. but as a tool we can leverage to educate, it is hard to beat.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
 #19572

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

I guess I didnt understand what you meant then (I was thinking privacy).  Still not getting it.

Adam

you've been agreeing with a lunatic  Wink
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:19:50 PM
 #19573

tvbcof think SC's are tokens, not blockchains.
brg444 is confused about SC's.
Adam ruminates about manipulating the issuance curve & even deleting future block rewards.
Odalv calls a federated server internal database a SC.
JStolfi calls a SC a Bitstamp couch.
LTC looks to be dying.
BTC price plummets (to support @peak of last top)
i may be getting SC's.

the world is falling apart.

yeehaw.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:21:46 PM
 #19574

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?

Lol, Gox wouldn't run out of Bitcoin. It would be short fiat. Trust is earned, and services need to earn it, and markets need to price it in.

To harp on, to fix the abuse of trust in the world today we need to fix the trust in the money we have trusted systems to manage the other relationships, they're hardly broken and in need of SC's.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:23:15 PM
 #19575

I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

I guess I didnt understand what you meant then (I was thinking privacy).  Still not getting it.

Adam

I had mis-read that somehow cypherdoc was anticipating sidechain data in the mainchain.  One of the reasons I was against this was privacy.

Even a correct reading that there was total transparency within a sidechain system (including at the Bitcoin nexus) has some privacy negatives which I would (for many uses) prefer to avoid when possible.

As I stated, as long as I as a user can be confident that I have 'sole control' of my value in a sidechain, that is all I need.

I do think that people from the top to the bottom tend to get tunnel vision and assume a blockchain architecture to be the only considered solution.  I never did.  I consider it a wonderful solution for 'reserve' duty (often because of the transparency features which are a double-edged sword), but simply not a good match for 'exchange' duty.  Your pal Rusty fell into this trap IMHO though I very much appreciate his conceptions of slop...they guy must be an engineer Smiley

On a theoretical level (mine), tokenized solutions:

 - nix the latency hassles associated with blocks
 - are inherently efficient since the allow 'nature' to be balance sheet which nobody need care about in minute detail.
 - promote (potentially, depending on implementation) privacy due to this lack of need for minute detail accounting.

The change jingling around in one's pocket is a good example of a 'tokenized' system and it works fantastically.  One might say it works 'to well' for some people's tastes and don't know how much longer old-style currency will be hanging on in our modern digital world.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:30:36 PM
 #19576

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


Adam why not support OT. With SC as proposed users don't own there one coin they are trusting the decentralized network managed by pitting incentives to secure the coins.

SC proponents overlook the change SC make to the incentive system and think it's safe.

I'm open to changing my mind,  why don't you put some of that $21m into a peer review economic impact study?

The nonsense you spout about where your profit comes from is damaging to BlockStream's motives.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 06:37:58 PM
 #19577

Quote from: cypherdoc
Quote from: tvbcof
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC  Huh)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?),  I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited  I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain.  But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam

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

Activity: 2268


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:49:36 PM
 #19578


Adam why not support OT. ...

Maybe for the same basic reason you don't get into the car with the nice man who offers you candy.


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
 #19579

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.

Permit me to quote myself from another thread.....

Quote
One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.

Well, my question above was not rhetorical.  Is the fact that the ETF is listed on NASDAQ sufficient to enable those restricted investments?  Or are there other conditions that depend on the nature of the fund and its assets?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
MarketNeutral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 06:52:13 PM
 #19580

Quote from: cypherdoc
Quote from: tvbcof
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty.  Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand.  For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.

none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying.

SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC  Huh)

I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?),  I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited  I think, to be called a chain.

With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to.

Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain.  But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg.

Adam


Adam, would you mind clarifying a few things? I do understand the core blockchain system quite thoroughly, but these side-chain concepts are new to me and I want to make sure I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a federated peg would be easier to implement than a SNARK peg or a SPV peg, right? No hard or soft fork? But on the other hand, am I correct to assume that the failure points of a federated peg are theoretically more dangerous?

Moreover, as one whose company is currently developing private mining hardware, how do these peg/token side chains directly affect the bitcoin mining protocol (in terms of the block header's nonce, merkle root, etc), if at all? Absent a fork, nothing changes?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1029 ... 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!