Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 03:19:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 03:36:08 PM
 #22581

heads up, stocks looking to break to the downside.
1513480775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513480775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513480775
Reply with quote  #2

1513480775
Report to moderator
1513480775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513480775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513480775
Reply with quote  #2

1513480775
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513480775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513480775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513480775
Reply with quote  #2

1513480775
Report to moderator
1513480775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513480775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513480775
Reply with quote  #2

1513480775
Report to moderator
1513480775
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513480775

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513480775
Reply with quote  #2

1513480775
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 03:45:45 PM
 #22582

now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense.  for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.
what do you think about payment channels (e.g. lightning.network) as a way to scale up in terms of txs throughput?

i half listened to the first lecture video on the concept a couple of weeks ago while in the car.  but nothing else since.  it seems interesting but i do remember that it will require a soft fork.  getting all the core devs onboard for a change like that will be tough. 

much of what i do in this thread is not necessarily make judgments on which tech is good or bad for Bitcoin but what the chances are that a certain tech will actually get adopted given all the political and economic circumstances surrounding Bitcoin and the general economy.  sidechains is an exception, i see them as a real "threat" to Bitcoin which could derail the whole system due to unforeseen economic assumptions. 
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1120


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
 #22583


Cypher, just curious if you've seen this and what your thoughts are...

http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 05:18:14 PM
 #22584


Cypher, just curious if you've seen this and what your thoughts are...

http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/


I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 05:21:08 PM
 #22585


Cypher, just curious if you've seen this and what your thoughts are...

http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/


I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy.

exactly
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1120


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 05:34:00 PM
 #22586


Cypher, just curious if you've seen this and what your thoughts are...

http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/


I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy.

exactly

nuff said  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 06:08:10 PM
 #22587

looks like someone doesn't like what they read in the FOMC minutes.  not that it mattered anyways as it was already in the cards.  all news is bad news.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 06:11:42 PM
 #22588

Dudely Admits Fed Actions Dictated By "Market Reaction"- Live Feed

yes, he is a dude, and yes, they do manipulate the Dow:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/feds-bill-dudley-ignore-march-jobs-its-weather-live-feed
techgeek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 06:26:10 PM
 #22589

Dudely Admits Fed Actions Dictated By "Market Reaction"- Live Feed

yes, he is a dude, and yes, they do manipulate the Dow:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/feds-bill-dudley-ignore-march-jobs-its-weather-live-feed

Lol, anyone who thinks the stock market cant be manipulated is a bit naive.

Theres a huge documentary on when the first energy futures were being created, and the prices were set by one provider for oil&energy. That $4billion Enrom failure is something you can watch on netflix.

Its a huge insight on how one can take a expensive education on someones else loss.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 06:46:44 PM
 #22590

listen to this bullshit Karen Gifford of Ripple Labs spews forth to the Calif Assembly @14:00.
Chris Larson also says he doesn't believe we need a new currency:

https://clyp.it/zdpzphmd

Ripple is the enemy.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
 #22591

this is great.  you gotta listen to this.  smart ppl are going to rule the world:

Engineers vs. Thugs: the Power of Bitcoin, Cryptography & Tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KybZAEm0stY&feature=youtu.be
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 07:22:41 PM
 #22592

now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense.  for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.

No, its a well known logic axiom that the positive does not imply the contrapositive.

In other words, yes, the blockchain needs the bitcoin token.  But that does not imply that Bitcoin needs the blockchain.  Ok, ok, Bitcoin obviously needs the Bitcoin Blockchain to exist as it contains the history of the token's value appreciation and forms the foundation of its awesome features.  So what we are really asking is "does Bitcoin need to use the blockchain exclusively?"

Well can Bitcoins be traded off chain?  Of course.  Judging by exchange volumes it seems that most transfers (trades) already occur off chain.

A sidechain is just a decentralized way to make off-chain transfers.  Judging by what's going on on exchanges, if sidechains work they'll be popular even if their sole use is to decentralize some of the currently-existing centralized solutions (changetip?).

I think that there are very limited uses for a blockchain without an independently valued token (i.e. not a fiat representation token).  I have discussed some in this thread.  But in the ultimate egg-on-face for all the naysayers, I think we'll discover countless uses for a digital value token (aka bitcoin) and our ability to deploy crypto-currencies into these applications will actually be hindered by the inconvenience of the blockchain.  Sidechains (if they end up viable) are an attempt to reduce this inconvenience by opening up development of the blockchain, but keeping the token.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 07:58:59 PM
 #22593

now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense.  for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.

No, its a well known logic axiom that the positive does not imply the contrapositive.

In other words, yes, the blockchain needs the bitcoin token.  But that does not imply that Bitcoin needs the blockchain.  Ok, ok, Bitcoin obviously needs the Bitcoin Blockchain to exist as it contains the history of the token's value appreciation and forms the foundation of its awesome features.  So what we are really asking is "does Bitcoin need to use the blockchain exclusively?"

Well can Bitcoins be traded off chain?  Of course.  Judging by exchange volumes it seems that most transfers (trades) already occur off chain.

that's not at all what is happening.  BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange.  all the trading is just on its own internal DB.  when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address.  none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.

Quote

A sidechain is just a decentralized way to make off-chain transfers.  Judging by what's going on on exchanges, if sidechains work they'll be popular even if their sole use is to decentralize some of the currently-existing centralized solutions (changetip?).

I think that there are very limited uses for a blockchain without an independently valued token (i.e. not a fiat representation token).  I have discussed some in this thread.  But in the ultimate egg-on-face for all the naysayers, I think we'll discover countless uses for a digital value token (aka bitcoin) and our ability to deploy crypto-currencies into these applications will actually be hindered by the inconvenience of the blockchain.  Sidechains (if they end up viable) are an attempt to reduce this inconvenience by opening up development of the blockchain, but keeping the token.



SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp.  talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more.  and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners.

i was highly disappointed by this simplistic presentation yesterday which didn't get any traction on Reddit whatsover, btw:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0103

it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack.  these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM.  and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting.  those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong.
uki
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


cryptojunk bag holder


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:15:27 PM
 #22594

looks like someone doesn't like what they read in the FOMC minutes.  not that it mattered anyways as it was already in the cards.  all news is bad news.
FOMC (BS) minutes shortly: we further kick the can. Meaning gold down, stocks up. Ad nauseam.

this space is intentionally left blank
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:19:17 PM
 #22595

that's not at all what is happening.  BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange.  all the trading is just on its own internal DB.  when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address.  none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.

BTC "locked" into a sidechain also do not ever leave the blockchain.

SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp.  talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more.  and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners.

...

it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack.  these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM.  and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting.  those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong.

There will be different security models for different use cases. Are there potential security threats? Of course, I think we've all come to an agreemeent that there are no such thing as a risk free extension of Bitcoin. Luckily there's a whole team of very smart people working to understand how these can be best mitigated.

That said, your premise : "the next logical extension ... that sidechains make no sense", makes no sense and does not apply to the currently debated blockchain without bitcoin meme.



"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
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:21:17 PM
 #22596

this is great.  you gotta listen to this.  smart ppl are going to rule the world:

Engineers vs. Thugs: the Power of Bitcoin, Cryptography & Tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KybZAEm0stY&feature=youtu.be

could be a tarp tho. cryptography yes why not, but it's not bitcoin and its "mainstream" usage that will rpevent abuses and inequalities all over again.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:29:57 PM
 #22597

Hmm,

http://www.techmeme.com/150408/p20#a150408p20
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:42:29 PM
 #22598


Wouldn't surprise me if they end up acquiring BitPay

"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
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:44:01 PM
 #22599

now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense.  for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.

No, its a well known logic axiom that the positive does not imply the contrapositive.

In other words, yes, the blockchain needs the bitcoin token.  But that does not imply that Bitcoin needs the blockchain.  Ok, ok, Bitcoin obviously needs the Bitcoin Blockchain to exist as it contains the history of the token's value appreciation and forms the foundation of its awesome features.  So what we are really asking is "does Bitcoin need to use the blockchain exclusively?"

Well can Bitcoins be traded off chain?  Of course.  Judging by exchange volumes it seems that most transfers (trades) already occur off chain.

that's not at all what is happening.  BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange.  all the trading is just on its own internal DB.  when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address.  none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.

BTC never leaves the blockchain with sidechains either.  But the value does.  Its kind of like paper gold.  The gold never leaves the vault but the value is traded on exchanges.  Without dwelling on what the word "trade" means, what I'm trying to say that if someone gives someone else a Casascius coin, trades on an exchange, transfers in a sidechain etc I think that its fair to consider that transfer of value facilitated by the digital token but not using the blockchain.  Your opinion of how we should define the words may differ but what I'm talking about in this post is are these kinds of transfer.


A sidechain is just a decentralized way to make off-chain transfers.  Judging by what's going on on exchanges, if sidechains work they'll be popular even if their sole use is to decentralize some of the currently-existing centralized solutions (changetip?).

I think that there are very limited uses for a blockchain without an independently valued token (i.e. not a fiat representation token).  I have discussed some in this thread.  But in the ultimate egg-on-face for all the naysayers, I think we'll discover countless uses for a digital value token (aka bitcoin) and our ability to deploy crypto-currencies into these applications will actually be hindered by the inconvenience of the blockchain.  Sidechains (if they end up viable) are an attempt to reduce this inconvenience by opening up development of the blockchain, but keeping the token.


SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp.  talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more.  and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners.

i was highly disappointed by this simplistic presentation yesterday which didn't get any traction on Reddit whatsover, btw:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0103

it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack.  these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM.  and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting.  those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong.

Yes.  I'm not so worried about the friction since most people will get their SC coins using a decentralized p2p exchange system with atomic cross chain exchange.  This is easy once 2 digital assets are being traded (scBTC and BTC) where one of them was explicitly coded with this kind of transfer in mind.  Arbiters will be the only people moving them the slow way.

But aspects around prematurely unlocking the SC's backing bitcoin on the BTC blockchain have always been fuzzy.  I have essentially trusted the Blockstream guys to deliver (or not) since I'm much too busy to do an in-depth analysis just for my own edification.  But given that many months have passed since the white paper, the "or not" option is looking more and more likely.

However, as functional pressure builds and altcoins continue to see low valuations, I think people will start seeing the value in "curated transfer" sidechains.  A competitor to MaidSafe for example would instantly gain greater credibility (than MaidSafe) if it booted its blockchain with 1000 storecoins by parking 1000 bitcoins with a well known independent auditor.  Nobody will ever trust a for profit company to not inflate its token supply.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
April 08, 2015, 08:52:37 PM
 #22600



that's not at all what is happening.  BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange.  all the trading is just on its own internal DB.  when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address.  none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.


BTC deposited on an sidechain are parked in an address owned by the sidechain, all the trading is just on its own public side-blockchain.  when an owner wants to withdraw from the sidechain, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address.  none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 ... 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!