Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:08:14 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 ... 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 1150 1151 1152 1153 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805252 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 12:55:01 AM
 #22041

when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between).

No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones.

so to be clear, i want to avoid the situation where 2 lengthy chains (20 blocks or more) get created repeatedly and frequently by protocol changes that aren't well thought out and not subjected to consensus building.  sort of like what happened March 2013.  that is the situation where ppl lose money.  the only reason Eleuthria didn't lose out on all the blocks BTCGuild mined during that true "fork" was that Gavin, the BF, and the community donated BTC to make up for the lost block rewards they had mined.  ppl like you and me who didn't have tx's layered on top of one another in those 20+ blocks didn't lose money but i think those who did (like many ongoing businesses that transact continuously) should have or did lose money despite the rollback.  certainly they would have if the chain hadn't been rolled back and been left to die.

if you've never mined and lost a 50 BTC block reward from orphaning, it is painful, take my word.  and that is just from a one or two block fork with orphan from everyday normal activity.  

Quote
The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.

again, letting the market sort it out means letting the losing chain die out resulting in losses for those who made the wrong choice out of hubris or ignorance.  too much of that isn't good for confidence and growth.
Quote

I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).

true
Quote

Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.

Also, with respect to new participants losing money, that is fairly easy for them to avoid. Just buy both forks in equal proportion. That puts them in the same immunized position as existing holders with cold storage. If you don't do that you are making a bet on which fork is going to win. There is nothing wrong with making bets, but no one is forced to make this bet, and every bet has a winner and a loser.



that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.  the exchange price would start to reflect that first as the coins on the losing chain start dropping in price.  one could try to sell the losing chain coins and jump back over to the other chain but certainly there will be losers and then bigger losers.  too much of that is not good for Bitcoin.
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
Some PGP public keys you should import: theymos, BadBear, Sirius, Stefan, Wladimir, Gavin, Gregory, Jeff, Pieter
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
1481062094
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062094

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062094
Reply with quote  #2

1481062094
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:11:02 AM
 #22042

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:24:55 AM
 #22043

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.


maybe.

lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption.  for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:37:59 AM
 #22044

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.


maybe.

lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption.  for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.

Yes I agree if done in poorly conceived and chaotic manner it would be destructive. Zangelbert Bingledack's original message indicated that exchanges would need to be set up to handle this properly in order to treat forks as a market question. Likewise wallets, etc. It is a significant undertaking, but in many ways likely less challenging, less complicated, and possibly with less risk of people losing money, than side chains.

More later.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:40:18 AM
 #22045

why the hell do we ever invite Chris Larson to Bitcoin conferences?:

http://coinfire.io/2015/03/16/ripple-ceo-says-bitcoin-as-currency-unneeded-to-california-assembly/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 04:07:17 AM
 #22046

http://altoz.liberty.me/2015/03/17/why-ripple-is-the-enemy/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 04:45:24 AM
 #22047

so will Lawsky and the BitLicense shut out Rakuten?
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:25:00 AM
 #22048

Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.

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

Activity: 2086



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:29:15 AM
 #22049

Lightning payment channels just ended all FUD.

yup ... and some.

Payment channels technology are (another) game changer ... (multi-hop off-chain transaction routing, now that is the TCP/IP of money)

domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 936


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 07:49:43 AM
 #22050

People *still* don't understand the problem that blockchains actually solve.

Yes, I keep coming across that a lot.  It seems to me that a lot of people without the technical understanding just believe that "blockchain = something with 'bit' in its name or claiming some kind of decentralisation".  As if absolutely every kind of decentralisation needed a blockchain.  For instance, newbies with Bitmessage (P2P encrypted messaging) often keep talking about the "blockchain", even though there is nothing even coming close to a blockchain involved in Bitmessage.

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:55:17 AM
 #22051

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain Roll Eyes.

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

Like this post? you can tip me (BTC) 1LGi2DMhectdFSkBid5srrnHk8WHgD3V1d or very WoW (Doge) D9p6FZQb1sKkq9hApy4tnjSduYfdnc74bb
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:09:08 AM
 #22052

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

between $10k and $300k by 2024 maybe?

shields
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 164


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 11:57:06 AM
 #22053

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain Roll Eyes.

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

I skimmed over it, but I believe his fatal flaw that leads to the ridiculously high estimates is assuming the price at any point in time does not already price in expected future growth.

If you liked this post -> 1KRYhandiYsjecZw7mtdLnoeuKUYoGRkH4
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 12:18:39 PM
 #22054

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

Like this post? you can tip me (BTC) 1LGi2DMhectdFSkBid5srrnHk8WHgD3V1d or very WoW (Doge) D9p6FZQb1sKkq9hApy4tnjSduYfdnc74bb
HarmonLi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


Honest 80s business!


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 12:21:32 PM
 #22055

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

Bitcoin is effectively a currency or asset born to use a log scale, after all. I haven't seen many real world examples that follow an exponential growth as well as Bitcoin does Cheesy

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:19:30 PM
 #22056

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Backatchya2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:40:53 PM
 #22057

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
markj113
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1358



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 02:50:55 PM
 #22058

Spike in gold price due to $1.2 billion bid, someone has been splashing the cash -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/gold-spikes-sudden-12-billion-bid

Maybe the Irish finance minister -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/irish-finance-minister-dumps-stocks-buys-gold

Goldinger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:28:22 PM
 #22059

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
 #22060

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?














I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...

i absolutely can.  there's been several goldbugs like you who have held me to a higher standard of using the original posting date of this thread or its precursor as a start point to measure the success or failure of this call.  and this was when the outcome wasn't so clear.  that is a reasonable request, unlike the cherry picking timeframes you are doing.  when done in this manner, Bitcoin has killed gold in terms of relative performance.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1150 1151 1152 1153 ... 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!