Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 06:20:19 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 ... 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 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 [1279] 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011157 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 12:42:01 PM
 #25561

Gold failed to bounce in June, thus it looks like we are headed down. BTC likely to follow down.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31318

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31344

Safe haven seeking capital is flowing into the short-end of the bond yield curve in Europe. All in preparation for the contagion Big Bang 2015.75, likely Greece.

This is the most fascinating post I've perhaps ever seen from Armstrong. Amazing that his Trading Array model has INDEPENDENTLY picked up on the ECM 2015.75 Big Bang:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31361

Looks like the timing for the capitulation low in private assets (gold, bitcoin, and now the USA stock market too) will be in October.

Again I reiterate my 80% expectation for < $1050 and < $150 for the final bottom (price independent of timing). I assign 50% odds of a bottom < $850 and <$100. Ideally would be a bottom in the mid-$600s and < $50, as that would clear out all the dumb money.

As in 2008, the private assets will rally hard after the initial margin call selling has caused them to crater. Remember when safe haven panic contagion strikes, people are forced to sell their most liquid assets. I was buying 1000oz silver bars at $9/tr.oz.

1511331619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331619
Reply with quote  #2

1511331619
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511331619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331619
Reply with quote  #2

1511331619
Report to moderator
1511331619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331619
Reply with quote  #2

1511331619
Report to moderator
1511331619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331619
Reply with quote  #2

1511331619
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
 #25562

Seems Etlase2 incorporated my 2013 "Topic: "Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin  (Read 6785 times)" into his white paper.

http://www.decrits.net/decrits-consensus.pdf

Quote from: Etlase2
November 4, 2014

In the future when Bitcoin mining is no longer as heavily subsidized as it
is today, the problem is compounded by the fact that the network’s security is
relative to the amount of transaction fees assessed. If transaction fees are low,
the comparative network security must be low. If transaction fees are high,
it is likely that fewer transactions will be performed on-chain14 which would
also contribute to lower network security and an easier opportunity to attack.
It may very well be the case that older, less efficient pieces of silicon known as
ASICs that can only perform Bitcoin POW may find new life and profitability
in attacking the Bitcoin network.


I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

And from my account on Bitcoin StackExchange wherein they banned me for several months in 2013...

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/876/how-much-will-transaction-fees-eventually-be/8749#8749

Quote from: myself
In any P2P currency, there are only 3 choices, or combination of them.

You fund miners from savers.
You fund miners from spenders.
You let the government provide the mining. A public need so the economy doesn't stop.
1 is not available to Bitcoin long-term, because debasement is halving every four years.

2 penalizes economic activity, which is more important than burying money, ahem saving. Also it doesn't scale, unless it is uniform in the protocol. Gavin wrote making it uniform won't work in the market.

3 is thus the outcome for Bitcoin. (as designed by Satoshi)

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
 #25563

My prediction in 2013 for something like 21 Inc to arrive by 2016:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t/8686#8686

Quote from: myself
I now see a much more urgent and catastrophic threat vector potentially circa 2016.

Difficulty will tend to rise and fall such that the system-wide cost of mining is nearly the value of the coins mined (not perfectly but on a smoothed basis roughly true).

Thus the lowest-cost marginal miners will earn the highest profits and rates-of-return. Thus, as Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated, mining will become centralized among those with more capital who can buy the highest performance hardware.

This is more accentuated by the designed volatility in the price of Bitcoins, because a) marginal cost producers can go through periods of negative profits or no production, and b) more capital means more inertial reserve, economy-of-scale access to capital funding markets, and access to debt to delay insolvency so as to smooth volatility in market conditions.

So to capture a majority or maybe even most of the mining, an entity probably merely needs to subsidize on a large-scale.

The government or powerful elite has the funds to do this, either in public view using taxes (or deposit insurance on P2P currencies) or in documented black budgets.

Is there a scenario where the public would clamor for the government to fix a problem by doing this?

Imagine the public became heavily invested in wild "dot.com 2.0" run of Bitcoin price appreciation to say $1000, $10000, or $100000 (as some people expect). All bubbles eventually crash. Tangentially, the creator of Bitcoin would probably be a $billionaire.

So with an exponential crash in price, there could be a drastic reduction in miners, joined with a public wanting to blame something or someone. The government could probably find massive support for deposit insurance.

Thus I conclude that the computational Proof-of-Work design of Bitcoin is a serious threat to anyone who views Bitcoin as being independent of the control of the government. Noting that correlation isn't proof yet via Occam's Razor it is ostensibly designed for this outcome and thus to fall into the lap of the government.

And we are not talking about 2040. The pricing froth is building now so this could happen soon. And we also have another halving of the debasement payout rate in late 2016.

Which Btw, is when the repeating-throughout-all-recorded-history Economic Confidence Model expects this current bounce of capital flows into the USA dollar economy to turn hard down again a la 2008— exactly when we will need a P2P currency to help us avoid chaos of capital controls and liquidity collapse. Bitcoin could fail at precisely the time when we will need it most. That is what concerns me so much.

I would very, very much appreciate if any downvoters sign with a comment, in case this answer becomes prophetic we will be able to know how prescient you were.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158111.msg1684553#msg1684553

Quote from: myself
Satoshi said mining would become centralized:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

Here he said there would probably always be nodes willing to process for free after debasement ends. He did not elaborate on why:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html

Another reason to centralize mining is the communication overhead, which I implied in my prior post where I said Satoshi was discussing the 100GB bandwidth.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
 #25564

Basis for my comments about Gregory Maxwell also derives from this interaction (wherein surprisingly I made the same judgement that I stated in this thread about his personality) and also the interaction the On the Longest Chain Rule and CoinJoin threads.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 01:55:22 PM
 #25565

plenty of bad news for non-Bitcoiners this morning:



i've been warning you.  Gold collapsing, Bitcoin soon UP:



breaking to new lows.  leading:



and if you don't believe a small miner, here's a large gold miner about to hit new lows:

ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:00:58 PM
 #25566

Ripple ftw! Hahaaaaa  Grin

http://www.afr.com/brand/chanticleer/cbas-crypto-currency-move-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-20150602-ghee7i

edit:

Wright says the issue with Ripple is that it is a traditional trust model.

"If they are all working well, you can trust them. The problem is that no system is as secure as Ripple would like to have us believe.

"Ripple is in effect an IOU, the trouble is that this IOU can be misused. You can send things you cannot possibly have. For instance, it is possible to send a ripple IOU for 100 million Bitcoin. The problem is that there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin."

"So, Ripple is using a lack of awareness of what they really are to fool others into the belief that they are a distributed network and Blockchain-based system."
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:01:25 PM
 #25567

Lol! I almost poked you an hour ago to ask why we had not had our market report after the NFP moves!
Bonds taking a real pounding too ...

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:03:52 PM
 #25568

The Jaws of Death are closing on gold and the Dow (large red arrow).  Bitcoin will benefit:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:39:24 PM
 #25569

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:51:34 PM
 #25570

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.


Just to note, my connection with pumping Nxt/Supernet is because I truly believe it will grow to be a platform that will enhance and compliment Bitcoin, never would I want it to replace it. I do not believe Nxt is set up to function as a global currency and store of value due to the way it's designed. I do however believe it's feature set, which soon Bitcoin will be able to use without even holding any Nxt, will only serve to enable new Bitcoin functionality - which is still #1 in my books. It doesn't have to happen on the main chain to be useful, a couple differant chains will be very healthy "competition" spuring new innovations. Crypto is still very small and there is plenty of room for experimentation and growth. I agree that you need to remain a little more open and don't just shut things down without actually digging in to them, since that is the attitude all bitcoin/crypto haters hold to their detriment.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 02:58:53 PM
 #25571

The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on

nope.  with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy.  it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys.  too bad it's not going to work:

-

I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that.

But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price.

Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled.

You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine.

i appreciate the feedback.  i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration.

thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above.  i don't think that's true.  this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain.  if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years.  this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it.  he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks.  and that's a good thing.  if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained.  enough about that.

as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme.  to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it.  i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere.  could be wrong.  i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that.  i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was.  maybe someone could clarify.  but that's beside the point.  it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it.  it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin.  does that necessarily mean it will fail?  no.  but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge.  if Bitcoin fails, they all fail.  if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail.  if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail.  if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance.  the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke.  i think they're toxic.  yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company.  he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address.  that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward.  shedding those guys would be a good thing.

everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets.  we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered.  if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us.  Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve.  the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear.  this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011.  that is a great sign.  i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money.  this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high.  it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too.  but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise.

Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB.  so far so good.  is Monero in that category?  i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world.  oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero.  even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.  i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear.  i won't let that cloud my judgment however.  i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT.  to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs.  then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream.  i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders.  i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system.  that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be.  how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin?  not bad at all i'd say.  we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some.  the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet.  and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found.  Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play.

we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so.


Just to note, my connection with pumping Nxt/Supernet is because I truly believe it will grow to be a platform that will enhance and compliment Bitcoin, never would I want it to replace it. I do not believe Nxt is set up to function as a global currency and store of value due to the way it's designed. I do however believe it's feature set, which soon Bitcoin will be able to use without even holding any Nxt, will only serve to enable new Bitcoin functionality - which is still #1 in my books. It doesn't have to happen on the main chain to be useful, a couple differant chains will be very healthy "competition" spuring new innovations. Crypto is still very small and there is plenty of room for experimentation and growth. I agree that you need to remain a little more open and don't just shut things down without actually digging in to them, since that is the attitude all bitcoin/crypto haters hold to their detriment.

while i agree with the "digging in" part, i've taken a somewhat opposite approach.  and that is to dig into Bitcoin so deep that you understand it so well that any competing altcoin would really have to stand out to attract my attention and time to dig into it.  granted my "understanding" fits neatly into my mental framework of how i look at the world so that is where disagreement btwn individuals will occur.  i think of myself being so right so far so i'm going to stick with it until something jumps out at me.  and it hasn't been Monero.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
 #25572

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for.  it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money.  if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails.  why?  it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process.  this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant.  ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence.  it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that.  that is what i will support.  innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:35:40 PM
 #25573

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for.  it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money.  if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails.  why?  it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process.  this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant.  ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence.  it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that.  that is what i will support.  innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.

Well good thing you won't need to worry about that because the supernetwork adds better-then-monero anonymity directly to the bitcoin chain itself!
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:36:20 PM
 #25574

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

So no universal agreement on the state of the ledger? There must be some way of settling up over time. But I guess you just mean the protocol doesn't have to be shared, in some sense. This may be outside my technical knowledge. Not being a coder at all, I admit I haven't thought a great deal about how Bitcoin runs under the hood until recently. Your hints are getting somewhat tantalizing, but without seeing the whole thing we of course can't know if there's some obvious error if you're recreating Hashcash or Ripple/Stellar (can you? if it's that important you may as well open it to peer review; with a lot of it precoded you could still easily be first out of the gate).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:48:07 PM
 #25575

sometimes, you just have to focus on the obvious:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246607
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:50:10 PM
 #25576

You missed the point. Monero's "innovation" was the decision to add a single mixing routing "at the protocol level" which is only one method to create agreement between entities on how to mix coins. Bitcoin users can make the exact same decisions among themselves, mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

The value add here is weak, it will not be enough to make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch.

XMR uses well-known, mathematically proven ring signatures and stealth addresses in an extremely clever scheme which provides emergent new functionality, much like Satoshi's ingenious arrangement of PoW, HashCash, etc.

Did you miss crypto gurus like gmaxwell and theymos stating it provides genuine innovation (no scare quotes needed)?

Did you miss the fact Monero's Cryptonote protocol is unique in providing near-ZKP levels of unlinkability and untracability?  Try reading the whitepaper (it's not very long): https://www.cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

If you mix off-chain, you are merely obfuscating and therefore Doing It Wrong.

XMR isn't here to "make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch."

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

I read the whitepaper before. I never said it was not a clever scheme, it is.

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

So again, the differentiating factor for Monero is simply the decision to implement a single scheme at the protocol level, but there is no requirement to implement a scheme in that manner, there are other options to achieve the same thing in Bitcoin. No those options are not fully developed nor widespread today, but they will be.

In fact, implementing a single fixed scheme may turn out to be limiting over time
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:50:18 PM
 #25577

Now, if Monero or pretty much any total shitcoin was a sidechain and I could have the proper level of confidence that I could, autonomously, shift my holdings back to BTC, I'd be all over it.  If XMR is as great for privacy as iCEBREAKER claims (again and again and again), fantastic!  I'd happily use it whenever I have that need.
...
But I don't see why we need Blockstream to do that. Afaics, any altcoin could offer the feature where its coin supply is the number of BTC on specified reserve on the Bitcoin blockchain (using the methods devised by Blockstream).

Where I see something like Blockstream being of enduring value is that I'm not going to be checking every line of code of every (of the many) sidechains I want to peg.  The stamp of approval from some organization I trust is what I would be using to make a judgement.

Of course in the early stages there is a lot of fairly intricate work to get the crypto and certain aspects of the security developed.

I focus on the makeup of the Blockstream group significantly for these reasons.  Indeed, it is because sipa and Maxwell in particular are involved in Bitcoin core that I retain the position that I do.  I would probably have sold a lot more (or tried to) at the $1000 mark if Gavin was the main guy actually doing things.  Ironically it looks like Maxwell might have done me a dis-service by lending Bitcoin credibility at a time when I should have been bailing.


Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:56:07 PM
 #25578

do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).

That alone is already centralization.

And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?

I feel the force of the argument, but I think it only applies to the ledger-updating protocol, not the ledger itself. From an investment perspective, the ledger is what matters. The ledger is where the most economically important network effects are.

Even if TPTB can centralize and control the protocol, they can't stop the users of the ledger (BTC holders) from switching to a different ledger-updating protocol. Thus the store of value is maintained, and the network effect of what is now called "the Bitcoin ledger" is maintained. Now they could cut it off in its infancy, push another ledger to compete with it, etc., and that would be damaging, but you'd still have that core group of people who are aligned with the principles Bitcoin was intended to uphold, ready to carry on with that ledger.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 03:59:26 PM
 #25579

You missed the point. Monero's "innovation" was the decision to add a single mixing routing "at the protocol level" which is only one method to create agreement between entities on how to mix coins. Bitcoin users can make the exact same decisions among themselves, mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

The value add here is weak, it will not be enough to make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch.

XMR uses well-known, mathematically proven ring signatures and stealth addresses in an extremely clever scheme which provides emergent new functionality, much like Satoshi's ingenious arrangement of PoW, HashCash, etc.

Did you miss crypto gurus like gmaxwell and theymos stating it provides genuine innovation (no scare quotes needed)?

Did you miss the fact Monero's Cryptonote protocol is unique in providing near-ZKP levels of unlinkability and untracability?  Try reading the whitepaper (it's not very long): https://www.cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

If you mix off-chain, you are merely obfuscating and therefore Doing It Wrong.

XMR isn't here to "make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch."

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

I read the whitepaper before. I never said it was not a clever scheme, it is.

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

So again, the differentiating factor for Monero is simply the decision to implement a single scheme at the protocol level, but there is no requirement to implement a scheme in that manner, there are other options to achieve the same thing in Bitcoin. No those options are not fully developed nor widespread today, but they will be.

In fact, implementing a single fixed scheme may turn out to be limiting over time

don't expect someone who has lost the faith like iCELatte, by shorting BTC and going long XMR, to understand that which makes his investment decisions lose money.

he doesn't understand why protocols like IPv4 and TCP/IP still form the basis of the internet despite better alternatives having been invented.  it's called inertia and network effect.  or as you say, alternatively building better systems or layers on top of those protocols instead which add flexibility.  hell, i'm not even a tech guy like him and i understand these things.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 04:00:04 PM
 #25580

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC.  One provides transparency, the other opacity.  Salt & Pepper.   Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?  (Visible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?"  Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

majamalu's point is that for money, there can only be one dominate ledger. He is saying that for Monero to succeed, Monero has to become that ledger over Bitcoin, and there will not be 2 separate ledgers side by side.  

Commerce requires a single ledger in order for two entities to interact, and this is why we have always ended up with a single global unit of money that everyone uses. That unit was gold where national currencies were valued by how much gold backed their issuance. This switched over night at Brenton woods when the world agreed to switch the backing unit from Gold to FRNs, and today currencies now require FRNs in the form of treasuries to back them.

If crypto currencies succeed, there will be one successful one. That is why majamalu says Monero needs to be in competition with Bitcoin to succeed. It's either or, not side by side.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 [1279] 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 ... 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!