Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

Howabout this idea...

An asynchronous algorithm that links multiple side chains to Bitcoin in a floating peg. These side chains can offer many different capabilities that Bitcoin isn't designed for. The asynchronous protocol will protect Bitcoin should any of these side chains fail, but their success will make Bitcoin stronger and give it better scalability and liquidity. I already have much of the code for this protocol and it doesn't require any changes to Bitcoin. This protocol may have some bugs, but in time they should be worked out.
...it's called the market.

Not sure if serious....

This is precisely what sidechains are.

If you read my post carefully, we already have that solution. 

Well please save us all from this debate and grace us with your solution.

On what level does your algorithm run? How do you control the peg?

...it's called the market.

I hid the answer in tiny text. Gotcha!

So you prefer off-chain schemes. Gotcha!

I'll concede there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop them, but it's obvious to me that side chains don't solve any problem that isn't already solved.

Well it's obvious to me you don't really know what you're talking about since sidechains are exactly what you need to stop (or at least provide an alternative) to offchain schemes.

[1714210122]

1714210122

[1714210122]

1714210122

[tvbcof]

Howabout this idea...

An asynchronous algorithm that links multiple side chains to Bitcoin in a floating peg. These side chains can offer many different capabilities that Bitcoin isn't designed for. The asynchronous protocol will protect Bitcoin should any of these side chains fail, but their success will make Bitcoin stronger and give it better scalability and liquidity. I already have much of the code for this protocol and it doesn't require any changes to Bitcoin. This protocol may have some bugs, but in time they should be worked out.
...it's called the market.

Drop the 'floating' part of the peg (usually) and it sounds like a winner to me.

Being to lazy to look up Maxwell's 2wp stuff, I did a stream of consciousness idea on one of these threads a month or two ago.  It used private keys as an intermediate currency and peg implementation between native Bitcoin and the back-end (and required no changes to core.)

By the way, if you want to know who's working on the deanonymization and economic tracking problems, mention exchanging private keys systematically and watch who shits a brick

[cbeast]

Howabout this idea...

An asynchronous algorithm that links multiple side chains to Bitcoin in a floating peg. These side chains can offer many different capabilities that Bitcoin isn't designed for. The asynchronous protocol will protect Bitcoin should any of these side chains fail, but their success will make Bitcoin stronger and give it better scalability and liquidity. I already have much of the code for this protocol and it doesn't require any changes to Bitcoin. This protocol may have some bugs, but in time they should be worked out.
...it's called the market.

Drop the 'floating' part of the peg (usually) and it sounds like a winner to me.

Being to lazy to look up Maxwell's 2wp stuff, I did a stream of consciousness idea on one of these threads a month or two ago.  It used private keys as an intermediate currency and peg implementation between native Bitcoin and the back-end (and required no changes to core.)

By the way, if you want to know who's working on the deanonymization and economic tracking problems, mention exchanging private keys systematically and watch who shits a brick

I was making a light hearted point, but my agnosticism can be dispelled with an actual working demonstration on a test chain. I couldn't care less about deanonymization. I can barter and have made a good living at it.

[tvbcof]

Howabout this idea...

An asynchronous algorithm that links multiple side chains to Bitcoin in a floating peg. These side chains ...

Drop the 'floating' part of the peg (usually) and it sounds like a winner to me. ...

I was making a light hearted point, but my agnosticism can be dispelled with an actual working demonstration on a test chain.  ...

Ya, I saw what you did...even before being triggered by the red '4 comments since...' tag to glance at the thread evolution.  That's why I said "Drop the 'floating' part..."

[cbeast]

why I said "Drop the 'floating' part..."

"Floating peg" is an oxymoron.  It was intentional. Markets aren't going away. They will become decentralized, but not replaced by confederate functionaries. Altcoins will evolve into state sponsored fiat currencies while Bitcoin flourishes in free states and as a voluntary reserve currency.

[tvbcof]

 why I said "Drop the 'floating' part..."

"Floating peg" is an oxymoron. ...

Yes, no, sort of.

I would not necessarily shun an implementation which 'floated the peg' as long as there were valid reasons for doing so (likely associated with performance optimizations and subsequent reduced costs), and as long as I could be assured that the rate-of-change of the 're-pegging' had to remain reasonable and there was suitable transparency.

Such an implementation would not be my first choice, but I could certainly imagine using such a system for certain things.  Especially low-value, but I see all uses of sidechains being for 'low value' tasks in relative terms.

[cypherdoc]

Five years since the invention of Bitcoin, currency as its first application has made significant inroads into the global financial system. Its disruptive effect has shaken up taken for granted notions of money and inflamed the imagination as to what money could be. Bitcoin is characterized as decentralized stateless currency. Some critics call it money with a Libertarian bent, designed to promote a new capitalism, while many economists are quick to judge its perceived deflationary design as a fatal flaw. Yet Bitcoin does not fit any existing paradigm. It can best be understood on its own merits within the framework through which the technology itself emerged.

http://falkvinge.net/2015/01/06/understanding-bitcoin-and-its-disruption-through-its-roots/#pq=ElxHAW

[lunarboy]

 Brent crude oil drops more than 5% to $47.27 a barrel.

meanwhile in greece rufusal to pay tax to the government and a possible bank run before the elections on the 25th of this month.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-12/greeks-stop-paying-taxes-ahead-elections-central-bank-scrambles-halt-bank-run-rumors

[oda.krell]

Sorry, I was not blessed with the necessary Faith.  

[already quoted a few times] [and not a completely baseless argument either]

Necro. My apologies (sort of).

You argument, in three words: network insufficiently decentralized.

The counter argument, in just one more word: according to which alternative?


First, it would be pointless imo to argue against the facts: mining is concentrated more than most expected, say, 2 years ago, and more than many are fully comfortable with.

Fact as well, however: none of those conjectured 'mining cartel attacks' ever took place, and there's good reason for that: they might be technically possible, but economically not viable for anyone who holds a stake in Bitcoin (hint: sunk cost in single purpose hardware is a "stake" as well) because of the resulting market reaction upon discovery (or even suspicion such attacks are taking place). They would therefore only be mounted from someone who is willing to pay for an attack on the network itself, and I have yet to see any evidence that this is a realistic vector consistent with what we know about existing hashpower and who paid to employ it.

Finally: the level of decentralization doesn't look so bad anymore when one considers the existing alternatives. Well, there's only one really: traditional banking. It's like you're blaming jet plane air-travel for being hopelessly outdated and slow: until there's a superior alternative, it is the de facto optimum wrt speed.

[cypherdoc]

oil?  who the hell needs oil?  let alone natgas.  major storm brewing:



Dow Theory non-confirmation still in force:

[cypherdoc]

One coin to rule them all:

[MarketNeutral]

Exciting trading ahead! Big profits, big losses. I can't wait to see how it all plays out.

[cypherdoc]

the creeping fear is accelerating:

[cypherdoc]

looks like i am gonna get my chance at reloading 

[tvbcof]

...
First, it would be pointless imo to argue against the facts: mining is concentrated more than most expected, say, 2 years ago, and more than many are fully comfortable with.

Fact as well, however: none of those conjectured 'mining cartel attacks' ever took place, and there's good reason for that: they might be technically possible, but economically not viable for anyone who holds a stake in Bitcoin (hint: sunk cost in single purpose hardware is a "stake" as well) because of the resulting market reaction upon discovery (or even suspicion such attacks are taking place). They would therefore only be mounted from someone who is willing to pay for an attack on the network itself, and I have yet to see any evidence that this is a realistic vector consistent with what we know about existing hashpower and who paid to employ it.

Finally: the level of decentralization doesn't look so bad anymore when one considers the existing alternatives. Well, there's only one really: traditional banking. It's like you're blaming jet plane air-travel for being hopelessly outdated and slow: until there's a superior alternative, it is the de facto optimum wrt speed.

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.

Bitcoin could be, however, extremely competitive in the role of a reserve currency.  But if we are relying on a foundation of 'subversion and failure could happen, but has not yet so maybe it never will', this detracts hugely from it's potential value as a reserve currency.

The pipe-dream of using Bitcoin as an exchange currency has unsurprisingly sucked in a school of intellectual herring, but more surprisingly also a bunch of VC predator food-chain class who I would have not expected to be such dullards.  This has been great for my pocketbook, but their utility is nearing the end-point.  Now is the time to appreciate the true value of Bitcoin and work toward preserving what remains of it and unrolling the damage done by centralization.  This is what sidechains mean to me.

[Bagatell]

Now is the time to appreciate the true value of Bitcoin and work toward preserving what remains of it and unrolling the damage done by centralization.  This is what sidechains mean to me.

Say what?

[tvbcof]

Now is the time to appreciate the true value of Bitcoin and work toward preserving what remains of it and unrolling the damage done by centralization.  This is what sidechains mean to me.

Say what?

Did I stutter?  'cause I don't think I did.

[smooth]

This is what sidechains mean to me.

Side chains are not even the slightest bit needed to use BTC as a reserve currency. It's nearly prefect the way it is. 7 tps is plenty for that. Probably an order of magnitude or two overkill in fact.

[solex]

This is what sidechains mean to me.

Side chains are not even the slightest bit needed to use BTC as a reserve currency. It's nearly prefect the way it is. 7 tps is plenty for that. Probably an order of magnitude or two overkill in fact.

Unfortunately, the 7 tps is an old estimate, and the reality of large blocks is that 2400 tx is maximum, or 4 tps. However, even this is too large because some miners still turn out near empty blocks, and would do so even if the network had a severe backlog. So 3 tps is a more accurate working number.

[jmw74]

Bitcoin has clearly failed in an 'exchange' role as evidenced by still not needing to fiddle with the 7 tps transaction rate (1MB block size) and not being on a trajectory to need to do so any time soon.  The reason for this is abundantly clear and I've been saying so for years:  Bitcoin is simply not competitive in this role.

Bitcoin is not very competitive for buying coffee, but that isn't the only thing people do with money.

It's quite competitive for international remittance, black market activity, and micropayments. In some cases, bitcoin is the only method that works at all. Those markets alone are absolutely massive expansion territory for bitcoin.

The reason bitcoin hasn't hit the 1mb limit has little to do with the network itself, and much more to do with the shitty state of personal computing.  Keeping high-value secrets was not what any of it was designed to do. Everything bitcoin needs for that has to be built now. A lot of progress has already been made. There's no reason it won't become easy enough for anyone to do.

However many transactions per second fit in a commodity internet connection, that's how many it will have, certainly much more than 7tps.

If you think bitcoin can succeed as a bank settlement network, you might as well sell now, because it's never going to work. The whole point of bitcoin is censorship resistance, do you really think banks and governments and payment processors see that as a valuable feature? They're the censors! If individuals don't have access to bitcoin, it will die, they're the only ones who could possibly care about it.