Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2017, 11:35:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 [1212] 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1981353 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
 #24221

Which puts Monero in the exact same position as Bitcoin then. Bitcoin would have certain transaction types outlawed and Monero would be entirely outlawed. Yet both Monero and Bitcoin would still function and processed the outlawed transactions for people who choose to ignore the (illegal) rules.

And so both maintain fungibility through the exact same mechanism, which is people ignoring governments.  This is why I'll maintain privacy is a matter of usage, but is not a property of money.

I dont think anyone said money needs to be private to be money, Monero is a private form of electronic money from blockchain perspective, Bitcoin is not truly one because all separating anyone from tracing you is them not knowing you own the addresses, create one single exit or entry point with KYC and your entire history of transactions is compromised and you'll never know whos watching and why, think credit card, thats is what Bitcoin is more like, Monero on other hand is setup so that traceability of funds is limited within the scope of a certain organization or government, basically a database of view keys, Bitcoin was setup to be traceable by anyone including their doge. Monero also has better mining algo to difficult ASICS and can SCALE.

Not debating any of that, agree that Monero is more private.

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption. The subset of people who need privacy can use both in a manner that achieves it. Regarding "better mining algo", again this is not a property of money I think people who are resorting to these types of arguments to convince themselves that altcoin x is better are kidding themselves.

On the six properties I care about Monero is either the same or worse than Bitcoin. Explain to me how Monero is better on any of those six properties, otherwise you don't have a solid argument that it is better.
1506339304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506339304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506339304
Reply with quote  #2

1506339304
Report to moderator
1506339304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506339304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506339304
Reply with quote  #2

1506339304
Report to moderator
1506339304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506339304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506339304
Reply with quote  #2

1506339304
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 09:56:20 PM
 #24222

Very valuable work coming from Andrew Miller (@socrate1024): a way to test bitcoin at scale using shadow (1) and a custom made shadow multi-thread plugin. Applying this framework they even found out a novel denial-of-service attack against the Bitcoin software.

The paper: "Shadow-Bitcoin: Scalable Simulation via Direct Execution of Multi-threaded Applications"

https://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/shadow-bitcoin.pdf

And here the link to the plugin code: https://github.com/shadow/shadow-plugin-bitcoin

(1) https://shadow.github.io

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 09:59:34 PM
 #24223

Not debating any of that, agree that Monero is more private.

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption. The subset of people who need privacy can use both in a manner that achieves it. Regarding "better mining algo", again this is not a property of money I think people who are resorting to these types of arguments to convince themselves that altcoin x is better are kidding themselves. On the six properties I care about Monero is either the same or worse than Bitcoin.

I can convince myself of whatever I want, including that Bitcoin as money sucks is a NWO tracking tool waiting to happen.

BTW would you use a metal as money that has only 3 or 4 large groups mining 80% of all deposits of it or one that has better qualities of money and can be found in your backyard yet as rare as the first one.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:00:13 PM
 #24224


seems to me that at the very least we will see companies like Qualcomm opening their own mining pools at which all these devices will be pointed.  this would be fantastic in further decentralizing mining in terms of increasing pool choices.  especially here in the US.  and if Qualcomm opens a pool, others are sure to follow.  like Whirlpool, GE, Subzero, etc.

i think 21 is seriously going to mess with credit card companies.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1540



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:02:33 PM
 #24225

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

chriswilmer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2015, 10:15:40 PM
 #24226

Guys, even if you think buying Monero is a terrible decision (perfectly reasonable stance) I highly recommend this excellent and fascinating technical interview with the Monero core dev:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/ltb-e202-understanding-monero

Explains viewkeys and ring signatures. Also very briefly touches of fungibility... but the discussion mostly revolves around the cryptography.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:19:56 PM
 #24227

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.



i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:21:25 PM
 #24228

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

The government can attack the fungibility of both by either outlawing the currency or outlawing blacklist transactions, so the fungibility of both rest to a certain extent on the ability of individuals to interact with the currency outside of the law. This is true for gold or any other money in existence.

For an example, the privacy of gold was broken when they outlawed direct possession and forced everyone into bank notes. Gold used to be able to be used privately (direct transfer) but now it wasn't (no direct transfer legally allowed). The innate properties of Gold and Money did not change, gold was still fungible. What changed was the legal framework around them that prevented that fungibility from being used to gain privacy. This leads me to believe again that privacy is NOT an innate property of money, but is determined by how it is used.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1540



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:33:40 PM
 #24229

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:38:30 PM
 #24230

after analyzing the report, i think 21 is going to be big.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:09 PM
 #24231

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.


i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.

Not questioning whether privacy is an important aspect to have in money, it definitely is.

But I think everyone needs to work out for themselves if privacy is: 1) an innate property of money, or if privacy is 2) derived from how money is used. I personally think it is #2. This has very important implications on if you think Bitcoin will win, or if something like Monero will win. If you think #1 then Monero is better money, if #2 then Bitcoin at this point.

Gold was fungible & portable, it was the combination of these two properties that enabled Gold to be used privately. When governments outlawed gold, both portability and acceptance dropped significantly which made gold much more difficult to be used privately. This leads me to believe #2 above.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1540



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:34 PM
 #24232

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.



i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop. Also, I'm certain that Coinbase requires intrusive and privacy-violating measures of their users even when the coins involved have had no connection to illegal activity whatsoever. You can use your imagination to figure out how I'm certain of that.

That said, what is true of Coinbase isn't necessarily true of Bitcoin unless Coinbase and services like it become so pervasive that talking about Bitcoin outside of them is in practice meaningless.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:39:53 PM
 #24233

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.


I fully expect some governments to outlaw Monero in some ways, it is much more dangerous to them than Bitcoin. But it would be out of ignorance because Monero can be made transparent if required by law on a individual basis and not on a panopticon level like Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:42:46 PM
 #24234

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop."

doesn't matter. at some point, just b/c you might be in a linear linkage with an address owned by SR at some time doesn't mean you're a criminal.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:45:01 PM
 #24235

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

My understanding of your argument is that in order to maintain fungibility, you need privacy or else that fungibility will be attacked. My argument is both a private and a non-private coin can be equally attacked, and in that situation both have to equally resort to being used outside the legal framework in order to maintain fungibility, so I don't see an advantage of one over the other.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:49:10 PM
 #24236

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

My understanding of your argument is that in order to maintain fungibility, you need privacy or else that fungibility will be attacked. My argument is both a private and a non-private coin can be equally attacked, and in that situation both can be equally used outside the legal framework (i.e. Bitcoin and Monero will both still process "bad" coins with no discrimination) with fungibility untouched.

man that's some mental gymnastic you do, the math is simple, Bitcoin is not inherently fungible but no one is saying it is not or cannot be used as money because of what, you are free to keep using 1984-tokens in your future.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:50:32 PM
 #24237

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:55:52 PM
 #24238

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

Bitcoin plus this (or any number of other extensions)

enables Bitcoin to be used in a completely private manner. I don't see any difference between Bitcoin with these easy extensions in how it is used, and Monero.

That and there is no difference in the level of "contrabandness" between contraband coins in a public blockchain and a private chain that is declared to be entirely contraband.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1540



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 10:59:55 PM
 #24239

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacy with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:01:21 PM
 #24240

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.  

Having to spend contraband coins in a public blockchain would feel awkward, a private chain suits the use case much better.

Bitcoin plus this (or any number of other extensions)

enables Bitcoin to be used in a completely private manner. I don't see any difference between Bitcoin with these easy extensions in how it is used, and Monero.

Far be it from me that I were against Bitcoin! I am one of the few people who even owns a Bitcoin castle!  Grin

But using monero is just soo easy that even if BTC fungibility is fixed and markets would force me to return to it, I would miss the ease of life when it was possible just to click "send" and not care...  Cheesy
Pages: « 1 ... 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 [1212] 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 ... 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!