Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2017, 05:05:20 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 ... 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 1149 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1953814 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
March 13, 2015, 12:13:35 AM
 #21961

:-) 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.

You are free to use as many "shit, spin-offs, alts, forks ... and digital" coins as you wish. Bitcoin is only one.
1503162320
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162320

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162320
Reply with quote  #2

1503162320
Report to moderator
1503162320
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162320

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162320
Reply with quote  #2

1503162320
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503162320
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162320

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162320
Reply with quote  #2

1503162320
Report to moderator
1503162320
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162320

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162320
Reply with quote  #2

1503162320
Report to moderator
1503162320
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162320

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162320
Reply with quote  #2

1503162320
Report to moderator
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
March 13, 2015, 12:16:10 AM
 #21962

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.



iv barely read much about sidechains but that makes sense tbh.. but what i have noticed is the very same people who slag off alt coins as worthless app coins and say that the features of alt coins should built around coins(like copay, open bazaar etc) opposed to built into coins are the same people proposing to bolt app coins onto the side of bitcoin? all that tells me is they want the apps, just as long as they are on (or attached) to the bitcoin blockchain.. im not going to pretend to understand the technicalities or economics of side chains, but the mind set of the proponents of side chains is easy to understand.

KICKICO██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
|██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
██  ██  █
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 13, 2015, 12:20:14 AM
 #21963

:-) 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.

You are free to use as many "shit, spin-offs, alts, forks ... and digital" coins as you wish. Bitcoin is only one.

Which Bitcoin Smiley
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
March 13, 2015, 02:00:12 AM
 #21964

It isn't the 20MB block size that scares me, it is the automatic doubling every two years until we reach 20GB blocks. This scares the crap out of me because if a problem turns up we need a fork to pause the scaling.

I'm starting to wonder if forks are really that big a deal.

Imagine if all the exchanges were set up to handle economic arbitrage of two or more forks. Say you have 20 BTC on Bitstamp when a fork happens. Your account is automatically split into 20 BTC in BitcoinOld and 20BTC in BitcoinNew. If you don't know/care about the fork, you do nothing. If you think one of the two is obviously more viable and/or obviously more likely to get support, you immediately start selling BTC in one for BTC in the other.

Since everyone is doing the same, I bet this all plays out in a matter of minutes because once the trend becomes clear it will snowball since no one wants to be on the losing fork. Luckily, again, you can sit out the arbitrage and leave your stash untouched whichever fork wins. It's just that you can earn yourself some extra coin if you guess the winning fork correctly.

Now to guard against possible glitches in BitcoinNew, even if it wins in initial trading, BitcoinOld will probably still retain some value for a time - for instance 10% of its former value for a few days or weeks - as a representation of an estimated 10% probability of a glitch in BitcoinNew. After that it would likely fade into nothingness. All the while your bitcoins are safe no matter the outcome.

Not only is this far faster than waiting for "consensus," it also ties more solidly into the basic economics of Bitcoin itself. As Daniel Krawisz has pointed out, where investors go, everyone else follows. Investors have the ultimate control, so the forking process should reflect this and exchanges should be setting their systems up for this.

I agree.

I would like this scenario a lot more if we replaced "exchanges set up to handle multiple forks" to "wallets/nodes set up to handle multiple forks".

Maybe I should prepare for such scenario and have a node / wallet ready that does that. Anyone have a suggestion?

I dont know. On one hand I agree that a fork to improve bitcoin or fix an issue isn't a big deal.

But on the other hand the more easy and accustomed to forks bitcoin becomes, the easier it is for regulation to push a fork towards some type of FEDCoin. To me the default should be that forks are rare and only for exceptional reasons
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 13, 2015, 06:01:25 PM
 #21965

But on the other hand the more easy and accustomed to forks bitcoin becomes, the easier it is for regulation to push a fork towards some type of FEDCoin.

If they can fork Bitcoin to their liking while not destroying its major selling points, more power to them and I'll even invest in their fork, but I don't think that's possible. The changes the government would demand would make it orders of magnitude less valuable and most of the current economic majority would stay with Bitcoin Classic. They could grow FEDCoin larger than Bitcoin, more valuable, etc., but Bitcoin would still have its uses - precisely those uses that were neutered in FEDCoin.

In summary, government-sponsored forks aren't a threat to Bitcoin. In fact they would probably just help, because they would get the general public familiar with the ins and outs of crypto, such as security. Then there's Bitcoin with its ex-hypothesi better features.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
March 14, 2015, 05:42:13 AM
 #21966

But on the other hand the more easy and accustomed to forks bitcoin becomes, the easier it is for regulation to push a fork towards some type of FEDCoin.

If they can fork Bitcoin to their liking while not destroying its major selling points, more power to them and I'll even invest in their fork, but I don't think that's possible. The changes the government would demand would make it orders of magnitude less valuable and most of the current economic majority would stay with Bitcoin Classic. They could grow FEDCoin larger than Bitcoin, more valuable, etc., but Bitcoin would still have its uses - precisely those uses that were neutered in FEDCoin.

In summary, government-sponsored forks aren't a threat to Bitcoin. In fact they would probably just help, because they would get the general public familiar with the ins and outs of crypto, such as security. Then there's Bitcoin with its ex-hypothesi better features.

The problem with goverment forks is if they get 99% of the public to use the fork (which is likely), the original system becomes irrelevant even if a few diehards stick to it.

Take gold and the FED's original gold backed dollar. The FED's original dollar was a government fork of gold as money. Gold coins offered many benefits from security, irreversible transactions, privacy, fixed stable value, etc. The gold backed dollar was a fork from mother nature in a sense, and they promoted a variety of benefits including easier transactions, etc.

Even after the FED broke all promises and broke the dollar's ties to gold, there were so few people willing to still use gold as money in daily transactions that gold never regained its true value.

A government fork of bitcoin would do the same thing to bitcoin as the paper gold dollar did to gold, make it irrelevant, not used and valueless. Sure there would be some holdouts who refuse to follow the fork, but they wouldn't be enough to maintain a functional market. Just as the gold bugs weren't enough to maintain gold's role as money or value in society.

That's one of my fears for the project. The harder and less common we make forks to implement, then the harder this attack vector becomes.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
March 14, 2015, 06:40:57 AM
 #21967


The problem with government forks is if they get 99% of the public to use the fork (which is likely),

This is a misunderstanding. Bitcoin is a global system. There is absolutely no way all of the worlds governments can or would come together to get 99% or their respective public's to use a new digital system, without highlighting the discussion on the use (pros and cons) of using bitcoin at the same time.

the worlds governments are just too competitive and adversarial for this to happen.

Free speech, even if hindered is still winning the battle on the internet.



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
March 14, 2015, 06:42:07 AM
 #21968


The problem with government forks is if they get 99% of the public to use the fork (which is likely),

This is a misunderstanding. Bitcoin is a global system. There is absolutely no way all of the worlds governments can or would come together to get 99% or their respective public's to use a new digital system, without highlighting the discussion on the use (pros and cons) of using bitcoin at the same time.

the worlds governments are just too competitive and adversarial for this to happen.

Free speech, even if hindered is still winning the battle on the internet.

Besides they already have 99% of the public using their fork. Network effect and liquidity will not make Bitcoin win, it will make it lose. To have a chance Bitcoin needs to push hard on being profoundly and undeniably superior.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 14, 2015, 07:38:06 AM
 #21969

A government fork of bitcoin would do the same thing to bitcoin as the paper gold dollar did to gold, make it irrelevant, not used and valueless.

I get the analogy to gold vs. gold-backed dollars, but in Bitcoin's case I can't think of any specific changes the Feds could make to a fork that would allow it to both (a) obviate almost everyone's need for Bitcoin and (b) be enough different from Bitcoin for the government to be satisfied with it (and hardcore bitcoiners to be dissatisfied with it).

For example, if the money supply remains un-changeable, this is awesome as the Federal Reserve has effectively been neutralized. If they make a fork that can be inflated, Bitcoin Classic retains its store-of-value properties and will be highly sought after. If they do something in between, we get a little of both. If they remove all anonymity possibilities in their fork, Bitcoin thrives in the black market; if they don't, awesome. If in between, a little of both.

At one end of the spectrum they take just a few of Bitcoin's properties to build a system that is better than current fiat, which would be moderately liberty-promoting, while still leaving Bitcoin's differentiated value proposition very firmly intact. At the other end of the spectrum they adopt almost all of Bitcoin's properties, which would be extremely liberty-promoting, but leaving Bitcoin with little differentiated advantage. Either result is overall very good liberty-wise (though the result where they mimic Bitcoin quite closely may not be very good for Bitcoin investors - but that result is also highly unlikely), and I see no point in between those extremes that would be any worse. So I conclude there is nothing to worry about.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
March 14, 2015, 09:06:14 AM
 #21970

The notion of the FEDcoin is beyond ludicrous, it's gone plaid.

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

Activity: 1638



View Profile
March 14, 2015, 10:10:32 AM
 #21971

Even after the FED broke all promises and broke the dollar's ties to gold, there were so few people willing to still use gold as money in daily transactions that gold never regained its true value.

The edict backed by the world's superior machinery for causing harm did a long way as well: "10 years of prison & 10k USD in fines to anyone who dares even possess gold."
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 06:05:15 AM
 #21972

A government fork of bitcoin would do the same thing to bitcoin as the paper gold dollar did to gold, make it irrelevant, not used and valueless.

I get the analogy to gold vs. gold-backed dollars, but in Bitcoin's case I can't think of any specific changes the Feds could make to a fork that would allow it to both (a) obviate almost everyone's need for Bitcoin and (b) be enough different from Bitcoin for the government to be satisfied with it (and hardcore bitcoiners to be dissatisfied with it).

Well one change they could make is to declare the fork is legal, while the original is illegal with significant +10 years jail time for using it. This is not far-fetched, there is a clear historical precedent/blue print for them to follow. Gold had thousands of years of history as money and most of the public in 1913 only considered to gold to be money, yet by 1933 they were able to ban even simple possession. The force of government combined with the apathy of the people is the biggest threat there is.

For example, if the money supply remains un-changeable, this is awesome as the Federal Reserve has effectively been neutralized. If they make a fork that can be inflated, Bitcoin Classic retains its store-of-value properties and will be highly sought after. If they do something in between, we get a little of both. If they remove all anonymity possibilities in their fork, Bitcoin thrives in the black market; if they don't, awesome. If in between, a little of both.

Any fork could start out as an un-changeable supply. The FED's dollar was originally convertible to gold and thus had a fixed supply. Then during the next crisis they can default and fork again to increase the supply through default "for the common good". Again there is historical precedent for this. It took only 20 years for the FED to break a thousand years of gold history, how long would it take for bitcoin?

At one end of the spectrum they take just a few of Bitcoin's properties to build a system that is better than current fiat, which would be moderately liberty-promoting, while still leaving Bitcoin's differentiated value proposition very firmly intact. At the other end of the spectrum they adopt almost all of Bitcoin's properties, which would be extremely liberty-promoting, but leaving Bitcoin with little differentiated advantage. Either result is overall very good liberty-wise (though the result where they mimic Bitcoin quite closely may not be very good for Bitcoin investors - but that result is also highly unlikely), and I see no point in between those extremes that would be any worse. So I conclude there is nothing to worry about.

Any fork could start out benign at first, but turn downright 1984 Orwellian over time. The FED dollar was benign at first, it was considered the same as gold, and look where we are today.

I'm a believer in the bitcoin project and think it has a decent change of success. But it is not black or white where either bitcoin is guaranteed to fail or guaranteed to succeed, it is somewhere in between (gray).

All I am saying is making forks easy and common makes bitcoin's chance of success slightly grayer. We can argue about whether it makes is very slightly more gray or significantly more gray, but to me that doesn't matter, why make it grayer at all, no matter how much?
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 06:14:46 AM
 #21973

Even after the FED broke all promises and broke the dollar's ties to gold, there were so few people willing to still use gold as money in daily transactions that gold never regained its true value.

The edict backed by the world's superior machinery for causing harm did a long way as well: "10 years of prison & 10k USD in fines to anyone who dares even possess gold."

This is largely why I think so many in government and banking do not see bitcoin as a real threat to the system. The mind set there is they have a multitude of methods to dictate and control money as they see fit. It's why bitcoin as a real threat is considered to be a joke in many of those circles.

And although I disagree with them (it's why I am here), the threats are real and I personally think bitcoin should constantly be thinking about how to strengthen itself against them.

Take chainanalysis's likely recent Sybil attack. This is a small startup, there can and will be bigger attempts and may things in the future.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=978088.msg10756505#msg10756505
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
March 15, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
 #21974

Martin Armstrong: New Electronic Currency Coming

http://www.dasgelbeforum.net/forum_entry.php?id=347228

Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722



View Profile
March 15, 2015, 10:00:44 AM
 #21975

Martin Armstrong: New Electronic Currency Coming

http://www.dasgelbeforum.net/forum_entry.php?id=347228

"This will be the BITCOIN without the BITCOIN."

Am I the only one that doesn't think so?
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1022


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 01:00:23 PM
 #21976

Martin Armstrong: New Electronic Currency Coming

http://www.dasgelbeforum.net/forum_entry.php?id=347228

"This will be the BITCOIN without the BITCOIN."

Am I the only one that doesn't think so?

Nope  Cool
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
 #21977

I get the analogy to gold vs. gold-backed dollars, but in Bitcoin's case I can't think of any specific changes the Feds could make to a fork that would allow it to both (a) obviate almost everyone's need for Bitcoin and (b) be enough different from Bitcoin for the government to be satisfied with it (and hardcore bitcoiners to be dissatisfied with it).

Well one change they could make is to declare the fork is legal, while the original is illegal with significant +10 years jail time for using it.

It's not that different from simply declaring Bitcoin illegal. In either case the incentive to use Bitcoin is affected similarly, to the extent that FEDCoin lacks Bitcoin's key features. (And again, to the extent that it doesn't lack Bitcoin's features, it's wonderful - just not for Bitcoin investors - but also highly unlikely to happen.)

More than that, banning Bitcoin and using a FEDCoin lacking many of Bitcoin's key features just hamstrings the US in the economic race. It's a giveaway to other countries.

Any fork could start out as an un-changeable supply. The FED's dollar was originally convertible to gold and thus had a fixed supply. Then during the next crisis they can default and fork again to increase the supply through default "for the common good".

This is a dream scenario for Bitcoin: they've familiarized the general public with some or most of the benefits of Bitcoin, now they are corrupting their own fork, driving people to use Bitcoin (or, if the original FEDCoin is sufficiently Bitcoin-like to keep people away from Bitcoin, then people will just keep using the more Bitcoin-like fork; if they also ban the original FEDCoin fork, then we're back to the "Bitcoin ban" scenario mentioned above).

So I can't see any move toward FEDCoin not helping Bitcoin, or at least advancing the cause of cryptoledgers.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 05:56:21 PM
 #21978

So I can't see any move toward FEDCoin not helping Bitcoin, or at least advancing the cause of cryptoledgers.

Agreed.

This inevitably leads to competition between the two monetary system. It all boils down to people now having a legit alternative that is uniquely accessible, hard to confiscate and absent, at least to some degree, from the corruption of banks and the state. Something gold has ultimately failed to offer.

If you believe Bitcoin's monetary features to be sound then it should win based on economic merits alone.


"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
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 06:30:15 PM
 #21979

On forkability in general, I see it as a great strength, not a weakness. It means that the economic majority is always in control even when major changes have to be made.

As a side note, I find it cumbersome during deeper analysis to think in terms of "Bitcoin." Rather, I think more fluidly in terms of the economic majority ledger (currently known as the Bitcoin ledger). Forking the protocol is largely powerless* to affect the economic majority ledger, because - by the same logic as in my previous two posts - the new protocol fork only retains control of the economic majority ledger to the extent that the protocol change is compelling to the economic majority.**

Since every differentiated protocol fork (here I mean altcoins) has so far created an entirely new ledger, of course they aren't very compelling to the economic majority, receiving at most tepid investment interest. A spin-off would be based on the economic majority ledger, so it would have a great advantage over an altledger/altcoin, though if it wasn't compelling it would just be sold off by bitcoin holders for more bitcoins.

If a substantially different protocol fork or spin-off is ever more compelling to the economic majority, and of course using the same ledger is the first requirement for that, it would be adopted. The economic majority retains their ledger with their wealth in all cases. Bitcoin-the-protocol may be no more, but the ledger stays so bitcoin holders have nothing to fear except a re-naming.

Suppose a substantial segment of the economic majority shows interest in some change you find repulsive. Likely many others will agree with you, so in some unlikely scenarios you will potentially have two ledgers form over time.** If this does occur, it's the most amazing form of democracy (not voice democracy, but exit democracy) because everyone can use the system they want without compromise. However, again, there is a strong tendency to simply converge on ideal money based on the wisdom of (investing) crowds.

For instance, if we suppose a substantial segment of the economic majority shows interest FedCoin, then the legal situation may make it likely that the two coexist, with Bitcoin either on the black market in that country or competing directly with FedCoin. In that case, again, exit-democracy prevails and the Feds have no more tools to corrupt cryptocurrency than they do now (see the arguments in my two previous posts).

Here's another important implication of thinking in terms of the economic majority ledger: Bitcoin issuance is not limited to 21 million coins because of the protocol, but because of the exit-democratic consensus of the economic majority. It is incorrect to say we have moved from an era of control by central bankers to an era of control by mathematics. We have moved to an era of control by the economic majority.

This is a great advance, but not because "no one" can change the protocol, but because no one can force any group of people to stop using it. To effectively change the coin limit, you have to either convince the economic majority to do so, which is a herculean task, or convince some subset of the economic majority - but then that doesn't affect the rest of the people. That means the coin limit could change (for example, in 50 years to deal with mining incentives), but not without a reason that is so incredibly compelling that it sways all or most of the economic majority - in which case the typical bitcoiner should probably not worry, despite how bad it sounds, because the economic majority has those same reservations to overcome. And also we know that the change wouldn't allow for any net-harmful degree of continuing inflation or other effects, because the wisdom of the economic majority would be behind it.***

This is the kind of guarantee Bitcoin provides; it's essentially a decentralized governance where voice vs. exit is fully exercised at all times. What Bitcoin provides is not a guarantee by code or math, rather code and math are what enforce the "edicts" of this decentralized governance structure subject to the continual pressures of voice and exit backed by investment flows.

If, for example, the economic majority believes that increasing max_blocksize to 20MB or shorter block times or Turing completeness will make the protocol for updating the economic majority ledger more compelling, a fork incorporating these changes would thrive and beat out the Bitcoin Classic protocol.

So to me, all that's required for Bitcoin-the-ledger to survive in perpetuity and make every investor rich is for the protocol to be upgraded if and only if the economic majority deems it truly compelling, with all the prudence about viability that that entails. Forking makes that happen, giving that critical exit option to balance voice, which in Bitcoin is already vastly superior to government democracy voice since it's backed by actual money.

*So far around 90% powerless, considering the combined market cap of all the altledgers compared to the economic majority ledger (Bitcoin).

**Although some kind of 50/50 or 40/60 split could happen in theory, the incentives involved make it seem unlikely in practice - and even if it does happen (because both forks are highly compelling in their own right), the market can only support a few such splits because there are only so many protocol feature sets to compete on through differentiation.

***If you're skeptical of the wisdom of the economic majority, first realize this is what controls Bitcoin right now, in fact, as is the theme of this post. Secondly realize this is as good as it gets; there is no way to create a system smarter than the economic majority, at least not without centralization (and in my opinion not even then). Third, if you're convinced that prediction markets are a huge deal, this should be appealing for the same reasons. If you're not sold on prediction markets, read the five numbered documents here. Although Truthcoin may be a misguided system, Paul Sztorc's arguments on the importance of prediction markets are impressive.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
March 15, 2015, 06:48:47 PM
 #21980

On forkability in general, I see it as a great strength, not a weakness. It means that the economic majority is always in control even when major changes have to be made.

As a side note, I find it cumbersome during deeper analysis to think in terms of "Bitcoin." Rather, I think more fluidly in terms of the economic majority ledger (currently known as the Bitcoin ledger). Forking the protocol is largely powerless* to affect the economic majority ledger, because - by the same logic as in my previous two posts - the new protocol fork only retains control of the economic majority ledger to the extent that the protocol change is compelling to the economic majority.**

Since every differentiated protocol fork (here I mean altcoins) has so far created an entirely new ledger, of course they aren't very compelling to the economic majority, receiving at most tepid investment interest. A spin-off would be based on the economic majority ledger, so it would have a great advantage over an altledger/altcoin, though if it wasn't compelling it would just be sold off by bitcoin holders for more bitcoins.

If a substantially different protocol fork or spin-off is ever more compelling to the economic majority, and of course using the same ledger is the first requirement for that, it would be adopted. The economic majority retains their ledger with their wealth in all cases. Bitcoin-the-protocol may be no more, but the ledger stays so bitcoin holders have nothing to fear except a re-naming.

Suppose a substantial segment of the economic majority shows interest in some change you find repulsive. Likely many others will agree with you, so in some unlikely scenarios you will potentially have two ledgers form over time.** If this does occur, it's the most amazing form of democracy (not voice democracy, but exit democracy) because everyone can use the system they want without compromise. However, again, there is a strong tendency to simply converge on ideal money based on the wisdom of (investing) crowds.

For instance, if we suppose a substantial segment of the economic majority shows interest FedCoin, then the legal situation may make it likely that the two coexist, with Bitcoin either on the black market in that country or competing directly with FedCoin. In that case, again, exit-democracy prevails and the Feds have no more tools to corrupt cryptocurrency than they do now (see the arguments in my two previous posts).

Here's another important implication of thinking in terms of the economic majority ledger: Bitcoin issuance is not limited to 21 million coins because of the protocol, but because of the exit-democratic consensus of the economic majority. It is incorrect to say we have moved from an era of control by central bankers to an era of control by mathematics. We have moved to an era of control by the economic majority.

This is a great advance, but not because "no one" can change the protocol, but because no one can force any group of people to stop using it. To effectively change the coin limit, you have to either convince the economic majority to do so, which is a herculean task, or convince some subset of the economic majority - but then that doesn't affect the rest of the people. That means the coin limit could change (for example, in 50 years to deal with mining incentives), but not without a reason that is so incredibly compelling that it sways all or most of the economic majority - in which case the typical bitcoiner should probably not worry, despite how bad it sounds, because the economic majority has those same reservations to overcome. And also we know that the change wouldn't allow for any net-harmful degree of continuing inflation or other effects, because the economic majority would be behind it.

This is the kind of guarantee Bitcoin provides; it's essentially a decentralized governance where voice vs. exit is fully exercised at all times. What Bitcoin provides is not a guarantee by code or math, rather code and math are what enforce the "edicts" of this decentralized governance structure subject to the continual pressures of voice and exit backed by investment flows.

If, for example, the economic majority believes that increasing max_blocksize to 20MB or shorter block times or Turing completeness will make the protocol for updating the economic majority ledger more compelling, a fork incorporating these changes would thrive and beat out the Bitcoin Classic protocol.

So to me, all that's required for Bitcoin-the-ledger to survive in perpetuity and make every investor rich is for the protocol to be upgraded if and only if the economic majority deems it truly compelling, with all the prudence about viability that that entails. Forking makes that happen, giving that critical exit option to balance voice, which in Bitcoin is already vastly superior to government democracy voice since it's backed by actual money.

*So far around 90% powerless, considering the combined market cap of all the altledgers compared to the economic majority ledger (Bitcoin).

**Although some kind of 50/50 or 40/60 split could happen in theory, the incentives involved make it seem unlikely in practice - and even if it does happen (because both forks are highly compelling in their own right), the market can only support a few such splits because there are only so many protocol feature sets to compete on through differentiation.

prolific posting once again. thank you for sharing this. beautiful extension of Balaji's original comments.

"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1149 ... 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!