cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 02:02:15 PM |
|
Another thing, Satoshi Nakamoto never talked about "Sound Money" or "New Age Gold Buggery", never. The only time he did mention why the 21 M supply limit was when he said it would create a "positive feedback loop" as an addition in his first posts.
He always intended bitcoin to be a payment system for e-commerce. The whitepaper has this written all over it and anything else too. That clearly failed. Because today nobody spends bitcoin (aside from drug dealers, pretty much).
You are just putting your ideologies where they don't even belong.
So much BS from you. Aren't you ashamed of being so obvious? I'm just finishing up Satoshi's writings, the book by Paul Champagne. Of course you've never read it but it mentions Bitcoins similarity to gold and gold mining many times. It's a pervasive theme. He also mentions bitcoins fixed supply and how you ought to pick some up as he predicted they might one day become quite valuable as a result. Don't you realize how hypocritical you sound spending all your valuable time hanging out on a Bitcoin forum trolling? Do you not have any self respect? Yeah, whatever. You know nothing of Satoshi's work, he has prophesied and spake thus: "He [inventor of LEOCoin, Dan Anderson] it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."It's right there, in The White Paper! Do you even read, bro? sporket, you've busted a sproket.
|
|
|
|
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 08, 2015, 02:25:56 PM |
|
Wow, I'm really surprised how many people get it there! Is it maybe just few but loud noises (media outlets, VC companies) that give the impression of "blockchain without bitcoin" being the current hype? Or did sentiment change recently? It's just because the subreddit has been bombarded with arguments debunking the misconception over the past few days. In thread after thread. The crowd there can be slow, but hit them hard enough in a short timespan and it starts to sink in.
|
|
|
|
Torque
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3696
Merit: 5277
|
|
April 08, 2015, 02:41:40 PM Last edit: April 08, 2015, 03:00:59 PM by Torque |
|
Wow, I'm really surprised how many people get it there! Is it maybe just few but loud noises (media outlets, VC companies) that give the impression of "blockchain without bitcoin" being the current hype? Or did sentiment change recently? It's just because the subreddit has been bombarded with arguments debunking the misconception over the past few days. In thread after thread. The crowd there can be slow, but hit them hard enough in a short timespan and it starts to sink in. It's been a good narrative for the media to crank up, this idea that "Bitcoin-the-blockchain" has merit, but "Bitcoin-the-currency" they are still unsure. Notice that this is a slow turnaround from the "Bitcoin-sucks-and-you-should-avoid-it-completely" narrative that they have been spewing for the last year, and this new narrative gives them a clean out from that negative view. Notice too that they start timing this new narrative exactly when the Bitcoin market bottoms out, and is now on a slight uptrend. So why would they do this? So that the media can begin mentioning Bitcoin a thousand times online, with a lukewarm but slightly positive spin. As bitcoin gains traction again, this narrative will get increasingly more positive. The internet has a historical component that the media manipulates, so that when they switch back to the narrative "Could Bitcoin the currency be the next big thing?" again, it will seem to those searching online that the media has been talking about the positives of bitcoin for a whole year. And the sheep will of course follow this blindly. They do this with the stock market as well, to great effect.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 03:30:23 PM |
|
damn, i just missed setting the other half of my gold short @1224 by a few minutes the other day. oh well.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 03:33:20 PM |
|
Wow, I'm really surprised how many people get it there! Is it maybe just few but loud noises (media outlets, VC companies) that give the impression of "blockchain without bitcoin" being the current hype? Or did sentiment change recently? It's just because the subreddit has been bombarded with arguments debunking the misconception over the past few days. In thread after thread. The crowd there can be slow, but hit them hard enough in a short timespan and it starts to sink in. 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.
|
|
|
|
sickpig
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
|
|
April 08, 2015, 03:35:13 PM |
|
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?
|
Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 03:36:08 PM |
|
heads up, stocks looking to break to the downside.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 03:45:45 PM |
|
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
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1040
|
|
April 08, 2015, 04:42:03 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
lebing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
|
|
April 08, 2015, 05:18:14 PM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 05:21:08 PM |
|
I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy. exactly
|
|
|
|
ssmc2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1040
|
|
April 08, 2015, 05:34:00 PM |
|
I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy. exactly nuff said
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 06:08:10 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
techgeek
|
|
April 08, 2015, 06:26:10 PM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 06:46:44 PM |
|
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/zdpzphmdRipple is the enemy.
|
|
|
|
|
thezerg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
|
|
April 08, 2015, 07:22:41 PM |
|
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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 08, 2015, 07:58:59 PM |
|
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. 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_0103it 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.
|
|
|
|
|