Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:42:39 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 ... 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 1030 1031 1032 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807128 times)
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 08:48:25 PM
 #19621

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year



I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can Smiley


I was just going to point out similar that despite the thread title it has generally not been true that gold is collapsing.   It went upto 1900 and has that true enough and its not gained anything but overall its not a losing asset in the longer term.
Like this last yearly view, gold gained alot in 2014 before losing most of it again which is just holding steady in the big picture.      As far as miners are concerned their costs have reduced from the oil price drop which generally means they make more money even though gold price has stayed level, I think they are better off in 2015 then 2014

Quote



Coffee is being used more in asia ?  Not sure if its gaining but we can expect gold similarly to gain from any rise in use

1481290959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290959
Reply with quote  #2

1481290959
Report to moderator
1481290959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290959
Reply with quote  #2

1481290959
Report to moderator
1481290959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290959
Reply with quote  #2

1481290959
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481290959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290959
Reply with quote  #2

1481290959
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 08:49:07 PM
 #19622

Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome
If you have trouble understanding how businesses survive the economic reality that competition in a free market reduces the profitability of all ventures over time, then maybe you can go ask them for yourself how they manage to deal with it?

There are millions of them in the world, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few and talk with them.

Let us know how your investigation goes.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol. 

And  what about his blather above that accounting doesn't need to pay attention to details, lol?

I notice that cypherdoc also avoided my very simple and easy to understand question like the plague.  I'll give you two a few days to come up with some sort of a plausible answer, but won't expect much more than 'because free market.'

BTW, I know first hand how 'they manage to deal with it', and it's not pretty.  Certainly it's not where I want to see Bitcoin go whether it makes me a fortune or not.



What question?

Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized  systems because of efficiency, speed  and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 08:52:30 PM
 #19623

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


Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only,  without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  

 Cheesy

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.  

 Cheesy

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 08:52:56 PM
 #19624

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year



I think most people know how the US $ will end up so get some gold while you can Smiley


I was just going to point out similar that despite the thread title it has generally not been true that gold is collapsing.   It went upto 1900 and has that true enough and its not gained anything but overall its not a losing asset in the longer term.
Like this last yearly view, gold gained alot in 2014 before losing most of it again which is just holding steady in the big picture.      As far as miners are concerned their costs have reduced from the oil price drop which generally means they make more money even though gold price has stayed level, I think they are better off in 2015 then 2014

Quote



Coffee is being used more in asia ?  Not sure if its gaining but we can expect gold similarly to gain from any rise in use

2014 was simply a cooling off phase of the longer term trend of this thread which should reestablish itself in 2015.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 08:56:18 PM
 #19625

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


Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only,  without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  

 Cheesy

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.  

 Cheesy

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.


Yet this from you:

what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  Huh
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 08:59:52 PM
 #19626

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


Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only,  without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  

 Cheesy

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.  

 Cheesy

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.


Yet this from you:

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

merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:01:29 PM
 #19627

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


Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only,  without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  

 Cheesy

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech.

Don't bother with the simpleton.

He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.  

 Cheesy

you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines.


Yet this from you:

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

merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi

And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:02:52 PM
 #19628


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:07:28 PM
 #19629

Yet this from you:

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

You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work.

Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them?

This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology.

What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion.

I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise.

"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
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 09:08:38 PM
 #19630

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
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.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam

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

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
 #19631

...
Some bizarre form of Tourette Syndrome

What question?

The question was snipped in a cowardly weasely and entirely unsurprising sort of way, but the link still works.  I think even you will be able to understand it, but I'll try to make it even more elementary if need be.  Note that even Justus readily admits that the actual reward that miners can achieve will approach zero due to unlimited supply of hashing power.  Knock yourself out.

Btw, you said above you would prefer SC's to be tokenized  systems because of efficiency, speed  and ease of use. Are you crazy or is this a holdover from your socialist days?

It's a holdover from the last time I pulled out my wallet and paid my neighbor for something he had and I wanted.

You really have zero ability to visualize abstraction do you?  Read my post above where I outlined some of the REAL problems with sidechains.  It doesn't matter how the back-end of a sidechain happens to work, and there are a vast number of possibilities (that's one of the main points of sidechains!)  If you don't like or don't understand a particular sidechain, don't use it.  What is it about freedom of choice that confuses you Libertarians so thoroughly?


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:13:49 PM
 #19632

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
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.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam


Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:34:11 PM
 #19633

He thinks he can get to 100k TPS.
What's the problem with doing 100k TPS on the main chain?

(other than non-answers like "it's hard to do")

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...

Quote from: adam3us
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.

I am talking about the specific sharding approach.  Its not easy sharding a block chain, and he made security tradeoffs to do it.

Nothing against someone doing it if they can do it securely (ie without impacting the security of the rest of the coins on the chain) or without making the centralisation very bad.

Adam


Seems he do not understand what is 100k TPS.

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

True, but that would be 10x Visa's peak rate. Their average rate is more like 2000.

I'm not sure of 100k was meant as the peak or average, I'd assume peak. 

My home cablemodem connection can handle 10,000.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:34:57 PM
 #19634


Seems he do not understand what is 100k TPS.

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day

In all honesty, that's not a particular challenge, but you'll be able to do it more efficiently than your competition if you have some of these scattered around the world:



but you probably won't be allowed to operate it for long without hooking up to one of these:



Actually, the real meat of the problem is related to network stuff which is harder to explain pictorially.


JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:42:06 PM
 #19635

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

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

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:48:13 PM
 #19636

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last 4 year? If you look at, say, the last 40 years, the picture is quite different.
markj113
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:52:19 PM
 #19637

Gold outperformed every currency apart from the US $ in 2014, 0.8% down on the year

Wait, but why are you looking only at the last year?  If you look at, say, the last 4 years, the picture is quite different.
If that is the way we should look at the bitcoin price...  Grin

Because I started buying gold Jan 2014

Gold 1985 to date -

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 04, 2015, 09:55:56 PM
 #19638

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

So 100k TPS means 2.25 TB / day of transaction data.

What's your point?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 09:59:21 PM
 #19639


And confirmed by Odalv, your partner in crime.

You are so confused. :-)

Yeah right. I think you are based on what you've said. Why did you confirm what JStolfi said and that is the concept we've gone over many times.

Id also like to see evidence of just who is MM'ing your federated servers that you claim are running.  
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 04, 2015, 10:01:24 PM
 #19640

I said what on the thread that you trimmed Smiley  security...
I though you meant one particular method of doing 100k tps was insecure, not the mere fact of achieving that rate.

Can you explain what about higher transaction rates inherently makes the blockchain less secure?

Seems he does not understand what is "100k TPS".

100,000 transactions * 260 bytes * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours = 2 246 400 000 000 bytes per day  =  2.25 TB / day
Yes, I can do math.

So 100k TPS means 2.25 TB / day of transaction data.

What's your point?

Looks like you know how to improve MC so we can do 100k TPS. Please explain.
Do not respond with "Increase blocksize to 16 GB."
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1030 1031 1032 ... 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!