Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2017, 02:15:27 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 [1098] 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1955501 times)
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 09:42:50 PM
 #21941

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
1503324927
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503324927

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503324927
Reply with quote  #2

1503324927
Report to moderator
1503324927
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503324927

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503324927
Reply with quote  #2

1503324927
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503324927
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503324927

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503324927
Reply with quote  #2

1503324927
Report to moderator
1503324927
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503324927

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503324927
Reply with quote  #2

1503324927
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2015, 09:51:46 PM
 #21942

Bitcoin is literally at a fork.  One path leads to super-gold, the other leads to yet another forgettable/replaceable retail token.

Why "forgettable/replaceable retail token"?  You could just as easily have said "spendable super gold".

I think that the promise of Bitcoin is, at its core, disintermediation (transfer to anyone, anywhere, nearly instantly).  This is where it gains its intrinsic value which then supports the value holders put on it by holding.  But if it costs too much for individuals to make transactions, then txns must be posted through intermediaries who as Circle/Coinbase have shown are susceptible to all the problems with today's banking system.  "Welcome the new boss same as the old boss". 

Sidechains could solve some of that problem which is why it is interesting to consider them alongside the block size; I suppose we could have sidechains for daily spending and Bitcoin could be essentially be your super-gold "savings account".  A carefully designed sidechain would still achieve disintermediation.  But money flow between sidechains and Bitcoin will not be quick so it would not be and ideal situation, and is still not achieveable with 1MB block sizes.

So I think we should accept Gavin's scalability plan, and guess what?  its not set in stone.  If it scales faster than the available hardware, we can always change it.

Really, the crux of the argument for me is this:

The worst case with the scalability plan is that individuals can't in practice be full nodes, but can STILL hold BTC in local wallets and spend them.

The worst case without scalability is that individuals must trust intermediaries to hold their BTC because a single txn is so expensive it must be aggregated -- i.e. the same banking system we have today. 

(none of the awesome functionality like multi-sig "custodial" accounts can be used (on a per customer basis); they all require a transaction to unlock the funds which would be too expensive to do per customer)

We need to get this right the first time.  One does not simply "always change it."  Otherwise hard forks would be called 'easy forks.'   Cheesy

When TOR and other slow/hardened connections are excluded by GavinBlocks, users must then trust their ISP/.gov/etc. to not snoop on or throttle/banhammer their nodes.  This creates intolerable intermediaries at the network layer, which destroys the basis for BTC's antifragility and thus its unique/intrinsic store-of-value function.

We can't ignore the trade off between retail suitability and super-gold fitness.  Trade-offs, like diminishing marginal returns, are economic law. 

Some of us simply won't be able to afford Bitcoin when it assumes its rightful position as Gold 2.0.  Let's accept that and move on, instead of rejiggering everything just to appease us pikers at great risk to the whales who do the heavy lifting to keep BTC viable and growing.  If you can't afford regular gold now, what makes you think you have the right to expect affordable SuperGold?

Many of us will actively resist network degradation and less super-gold fitness in exchange for more retail noise accommodation and uncertainty about the impact of exponential blocksize growth.  It's not just the initial 20MB Gavinblocks, it's the >>20MB Gigablocks that kick in relatively soon which concern those of us who care about the weakest links in the system's chain.

Individuals making low value tx don't have to trust Paymium or other off-chain intermediaries so long as plenty of capacity exists in 2nd tier altcoins' blockchains.  Litecoin, for example, is secured by more than enough ASICs and GPUs to be perfectly acceptable for small and medium size daily retail consumer BS.

Let's also note that blockchain technology, by enabling unprecedented transparency and real time auditing, allows us to keep our off-chain overlords on a short leash.  As Davout put it so succinctly:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

This is sig-worthy quote really gets to the crux of the 'retail token vs super-gold' fissure, and makes clear why the FUD of Fundamentalist Monopolists ("Thou shall have no other coins before Holy BTC, lest you be cast into the off-chain lake of fiat") is unfounded.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
March 12, 2015, 09:57:14 PM
 #21943

I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains. 
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept.

I think Team Sidechain sees that as a feature, not a bug.   Grin

It's also one of my reasons for believing BTC's antifragility will endure and win out or equilibrate versus the 'free options -> hollowed out mainchain' scenario cypher describes.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:02:49 PM
 #21944

Question about economics: say we have a hard fork coming up and people expect 2 chains with trading as described earlier by Zangelbert. Will that generate buying pressure on BTC (vs. fiat) beforehand because everyone wants to participate in 'the doubling' of coins?

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:16:00 PM
 #21945

Question about economics: say we have a hard fork coming up and people expect 2 chains with trading as described earlier by Zangelbert. Will that generate buying pressure on BTC (vs. fiat) beforehand because everyone wants to participate in 'the doubling' of coins?

It happens all the time with stock spinoffs. Sometimes there is is some effect when the announcement is made if the move is unexpected and viewed as positive but the actual spinoff itself doesn't move the stock much usually.

To make a specific example here, if the infrastructure were in place to do everything like this smoothly and a fork like that to increase the block size were announced I think the price of BTC would go up, not because of the doubling but because of the damn block size being fixed. However, the ability to pull off these kinds of upgrade forks would be more important than the actual content of the fork. Just my opinions.

BTW, something very similar is discussed at some length here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0 (referencing back to this thread!)

Adam Back's one-way peg idea (before it got, er, "improved" to the two way peg) was similar in net effect but slightly different (existing owners get a call option on newcoin at par instead of getting newcoin directly). I think this is slightly worse overall, but it is debatable.

EDIT: clarify difference between spin off and one way peg.


kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:25:39 PM
 #21946

you guys cant seriously still be debating side chains?  Undecided

KICKICO██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
|██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:58:21 PM
 #21947

Question about economics: say we have a hard fork coming up and people expect 2 chains with trading as described earlier by Zangelbert. Will that generate buying pressure on BTC (vs. fiat) beforehand because everyone wants to participate in 'the doubling' of coins?


This is a storm in a teacup. The reality is that a properly implemented fork will have 80+% hashing power on the new version blocks before the first >1MB block is produced. (Hopefully there will be a grace period of, say, 10k blocks after the 80% is triggered, for laggard miners and non-mining nodes to upgrade). So the old fork will have less than 20% hashing power, quickly dropping to as little as 5%. Blocks on the old fork will take about 2 hours each to produce, with coinbase rewards spendable after 1 to 2 weeks.

No company in the Bitcoin ecosystem will accept fresh reward coins from the old fork. There will be no "market" as the old fork will be unusable as it will take a year for difficulty to fall until old fork blocks take 10 mins each again.

In the scenario where there is a monumental cock-up and no preparations are made until the average block size approaches 1MB, under stress conditions, I expect all the major companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem will quickly converge and agree a change, then two forks would persist for a while. Expect the price to plumb the recent lows if that happens.

uki
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


cryptojunk bag holder


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 10:59:30 PM
 #21948

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
I wouldn't say that gold collapsed today. Pretty much not. Let's see if we can get the double bottom painted on the charts.
How about gold up and bitcoin up (my scenario of choice), as the dollar starts to correct after last rally (touched 100)?

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:08:42 PM
 #21949

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

Yes, but hacker(bot) can move fork-coins to fresh address too ? :-)

edit:
I only want to say. One mistake(signature) on worthless fork-chain and you lose all bitcoins in main-chain
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:29:38 PM
 #21950

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

Yes, but hacker(bot) can move fork-coins to fresh address too ? :-)

edit:
I only want to say. One mistake(signature) on worthless fork-chain and you lose all bitcoins in main-chain

The coins go to the same destination on both chains (or nowhere at all if the transaction isn't valid on both chains). So unless you were sending coins to the hacker on one chain, he won't get them on the other chain either.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:31:45 PM
 #21951

This is a storm in a teacup. The reality is that a properly implemented fork will have 80+% hashing power on the new version blocks before the first >1MB block is produced. (Hopefully there will be a grace period of, say, 10k blocks after the 80% is triggered, for laggard miners and non-mining nodes to upgrade). So the old fork will have less than 20% hashing power, quickly dropping to as little as 5%. Blocks on the old fork will take about 2 hours each to produce, with coinbase rewards spendable after 1 to 2 weeks.

No company in the Bitcoin ecosystem will accept fresh reward coins from the old fork. There will be no "market" as the old fork will be unusable as it will take a year for difficulty to fall until old fork blocks take 10 mins each again.

It is not necessarily determined ahead of time which fork will be the 80% and which the 20%, so people will go slow for a while. In complex cases where the decision isn't clear it could take weeks or longer for one to win out. I wouldn't necessarily expect that to happen often, but it could happen.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:35:57 PM
 #21952

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

Yes, but hacker(bot) can move fork-coins to fresh address too ? :-)

edit:
I only want to say. One mistake(signature) on worthless fork-chain and you lose all bitcoins in main-chain

The coins go to the same destination on both chains (or nowhere at all if the transaction isn't valid on both chains). So unless you were sending coins to the hacker on one chain, he won't get them on the other chain either.

Yes, you are right. But it is easy to scam noobs.
 - show them worthless fork-chain
 - pay them $$ for worthless fork-coins
 - and finally -> steal bitcoins using same transactions on main-chain
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:38:23 PM
 #21953

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

Yes, but hacker(bot) can move fork-coins to fresh address too ? :-)

edit:
I only want to say. One mistake(signature) on worthless fork-chain and you lose all bitcoins in main-chain

The coins go to the same destination on both chains (or nowhere at all if the transaction isn't valid on both chains). So unless you were sending coins to the hacker on one chain, he won't get them on the other chain either.

Yes, you are right. But it is easy to scam noobs.
 - show them worthless fork-chain
 - pay them $$ for worthless fork-coins
 - and finally -> steal bitcoins using same transactions on main-chain

Change the transaction format (header) slightly on the fork so transactions are not portable. That make the whole thing work more directly like a spin off and avoids the confusion that some transactions are portable and some not.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
 #21954

If you spend bitcoins on one fork then anybody can publish same transaction on other chain ... I think :-)

The wallet could manage that by moving the coins to fresh own address on the other chain?

Yes, but hacker(bot) can move fork-coins to fresh address too ? :-)

edit:
I only want to say. One mistake(signature) on worthless fork-chain and you lose all bitcoins in main-chain

The coins go to the same destination on both chains (or nowhere at all if the transaction isn't valid on both chains). So unless you were sending coins to the hacker on one chain, he won't get them on the other chain either.

Yes, you are right. But it is easy to scam noobs.
 - show them worthless fork-chain
 - pay them $$ for worthless fork-coins
 - and finally -> steal bitcoins using same transactions on main-chain

Change the transaction format (header) slightly on the fork so transactions are not portable. That make the whole thing work more directly like a spin off.

:-) please tell me, how many of 7,000,000,000 people can understand, verify and safe use bitcoins ?
HalFinneysBrain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
 #21955

you guys cant seriously still be debating side chains?  Undecided

Apparently you missed the part where the title of this thread actually says "Debate sidechains here!" Smiley
HalFinneysBrain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:48:16 PM
 #21956

:-) please tell me, how many of 7,000,000,000 people can understand, verify and safe use bitcoins ?

It's less than the number of people currently using bitcoins.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:50:24 PM
 #21957

Bitcoin is literally at a fork.  One path leads to super-gold, the other leads to yet another forgettable/replaceable retail token.

Why "forgettable/replaceable retail token"?  You could just as easily have said "spendable super gold".

I think that the promise of Bitcoin is, at its core, disintermediation (transfer to anyone, anywhere, nearly instantly).  This is where it gains its intrinsic value which then supports the value holders put on it by holding.  But if it costs too much for individuals to make transactions, then txns must be posted through intermediaries who as Circle/Coinbase have shown are susceptible to all the problems with today's banking system.  "Welcome the new boss same as the old boss". 

Sidechains could solve some of that problem which is why it is interesting to consider them alongside the block size; I suppose we could have sidechains for daily spending and Bitcoin could be essentially be your super-gold "savings account".  A carefully designed sidechain would still achieve disintermediation.  But money flow between sidechains and Bitcoin will not be quick so it would not be and ideal situation, and is still not achieveable with 1MB block sizes.

So I think we should accept Gavin's scalability plan, and guess what?  its not set in stone.  If it scales faster than the available hardware, we can always change it.

Really, the crux of the argument for me is this:

The worst case with the scalability plan is that individuals can't in practice be full nodes, but can STILL hold BTC in local wallets and spend them.

The worst case without scalability is that individuals must trust intermediaries to hold their BTC because a single txn is so expensive it must be aggregated -- i.e. the same banking system we have today. 

(none of the awesome functionality like multi-sig "custodial" accounts can be used (on a per customer basis); they all require a transaction to unlock the funds which would be too expensive to do per customer)
[/quote

We need to get this right the first time.  One does not simply "always change it."  Otherwise hard forks would be called 'easy forks.'   Cheesy
No.  This is software.  Its harder to change from a social perspective than a technical one.  If its becoming obvious that nobody can keep up with the blocks it will get changed and changed quickly.

When TOR and other slow/hardened connections are excluded by GavinBlocks, users must then trust their ISP/.gov/etc. to not snoop on or throttle/banhammer their nodes.  This creates intolerable intermediaries at the network layer, which destroys the basis for BTC's antifragility and thus its unique/intrinsic store-of-value function.

Come on man.  Think about the problem instead of arguing your position. 

First of all, you can receive txns and blocks over the open net and still send your private txn via TOR.

Secondly, if Bitcoin is so successful that it "wants" to fill a 20MB block but only has 1MB (demand 20x higher than supply), it will cost so much to send a txn you won't be topping up your SR account with bitcoin anyway.

Third, it probably makes sense to in general transition that kind of use to an altcoin with true anonymity anyway.



We can't ignore the trade off between retail suitability and super-gold fitness.  Trade-offs, like diminishing marginal returns, are economic law. 

Some of us simply won't be able to afford Bitcoin when it assumes its rightful position as Gold 2.0.  Let's accept that and move on, instead of rejiggering everything just to appease us pikers at great risk to the whales who do the heavy lifting to keep BTC viable and growing.  If you can't afford regular gold now, what makes you think you have the right to expect affordable SuperGold?

This is just dumb.  I can always buy some fraction of super-gold.  This equalizer, this lack of differentiation between haves and have-nots is what makes Bitcoin awesome.

Many of us will actively resist network degradation and less super-gold fitness in exchange for more retail noise accommodation and uncertainty about the impact of exponential blocksize growth.  It's not just the initial 20MB Gavinblocks, it's the >>20MB Gigablocks that kick in relatively soon which concern those of us who care about the weakest links in the system's chain.

Individuals making low value tx don't have to trust Paymium or other off-chain intermediaries so long as plenty of capacity exists in 2nd tier altcoins' blockchains.  Litecoin, for example, is secured by more than enough ASICs and GPUs to be perfectly acceptable for small and medium size daily retail consumer BS.

Let's also note that blockchain technology, by enabling unprecedented transparency and real time auditing, allows us to keep our off-chain overlords on a short leash.  As Davout put it so succinctly:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

This is sig-worthy quote really gets to the crux of the 'retail token vs super-gold' fissure, and makes clear why the FUD of Fundamentalist Monopolists ("Thou shall have no other coins before Holy BTC, lest you be cast into the off-chain lake of fiat") is unfounded.

But they don't get to benefit from it.  Because they can't use it without an intermediary (with small blocks).  So that intermediary goes fractional.  But with a large block size your home wallet might not be able to grab the whole blockchain (verify incoming $).  But it could still hold your coins and submit transactions.

Remember the blocks won't be filled. And if they DO get filled its a great problem for us holders to have.  It means Bitcoin is 20x or 1000x more popular than it is today.

The fastest way to kill this coin is to create artificial transaction scarcity.  That's just inviting an altcoin to come relieve the pressure.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder whether you people want Bitcoin to succeed.  Are you a miner or altcoin holder?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
 #21958

:-) please tell me, how many of 7,000,000,000 people can understand, verify and safe use bitcoins ?

It's less than the number of people currently using bitcoins.

far less. ... molecular is an example :-)  (legendary member that can be trapped in simple scam)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 12, 2015, 11:59:45 PM
 #21959

:-) please tell me, how many of 7,000,000,000 people can understand, verify and safe use bitcoins ?

It's less than the number of people currently using bitcoins.

far less. ... molecular is an example :-)  (legendary member that can be trapped in simple scam)

I don't see any connection with one way pegs or spin offs at all except that Bitcoin badly needs improvement that could come from a viable and economically sensible upgrade path if legendary members fall for simple scams.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
March 13, 2015, 12:07:16 AM
 #21960

you guys cant seriously still be debating side chains?  Undecided

Mainly because people tend to make up completely bass-ackards stuff our of ignorance or malice.  Ref: ~cbeast (now ~mortified) post above.

Cypherdoc's 'hollowed out' Bitcoin is another example.  WTF is that supposed to mean?  Sidechains would 'hollow out' Bitcoin to a much lesser degree than the Wingklevoss dudes who sit on a pile of BTC and probably don't perform any transaction activity for weeks at a time.  There is real concern that with a healthy sidechains ecosystem at scale even the 7 TPS which has gotten Bitcoin through 6 years and billions in marketcap might be strained just doing settlements, and a healthy transaction fee plus significant infrastructure support thanks to sidechains would be anticipated as extra niceties.

Thirdly, I personally cannot get over the Pavlovian negative response that people have to the seemingly very simple concept that Sidechains are for a different purpose than Bitcoin and one normally would not have much at risk with a given one.  Native Bitcoin continues to exist and is available for people with ultra-high security needs and are thus able to pay what the solution is worth (which is a lot!)  Those who don't have such needs and don't support the solution from an infrastructure perspective are a drag on the system and are very very likely to sink it eventually and blow it for both themselves and everyone else.


Pages: « 1 ... 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 [1098] 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 ... 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!