Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.

So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.

That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks

so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea:  we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least.  but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!

In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.

Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.

The value of the currency unit is not lost but the value of the "system" consisting of the main chain plus the currency unit may be degraded if an alternative chain becomes dominant. The main chain would exist only for the purposes of mining distribution, and then once distribution is negligible or complete, not at all.

I see nothing particularly wrong with this, as it is an "upgrade path" but I think cypherdoc sees it as dilutive of the original Bitcoin system (which he would rather see improved-in-place rather than replaced).

[ranlo]

In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.

So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.

That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks

so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea:  we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least.  but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!

In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.

Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.

The value of the currency unit is not lost but the value of the "system" consisting of the main chain plus the currency unit may be degraded if an alternative chain becomes dominant. The main chain would exist only for the purposes of mining distribution, and then once distribution is negligible or complete, not at all.

I see nothing particularly wrong with this, as it is an "upgrade path" but I think cypherdoc sees it as dilutive of the original Bitcoin system (which he would rather see improved-in-place rather than replaced).

People look at things the wrong way. Let's use a real-world example to show it:

Gold was a form of money. Silver was its lesser counterpart.
Fiat was created, based on gold. Now fiat is the main currency, while gold/silver are investment vehicles.

All of these have value. They are all convertible between one another. Just because fiat took over doesn't mean the others were destroyed/worthless.

I think BTC is the same way. I have very little doubts that it will be taken over by other currencies. But I think it will remain a main investment vehicle and therefore still have its use/value. It just won't be what we use for day-to-day transacting.

[justusranvier]

People look at things the wrong way. Let's use a real-world example to show it:

Gold was a form of money. Silver was its lesser counterpart.
Fiat was created, based on gold. Now fiat is the main currency, while gold/silver are investment vehicles.

All of these have value. They are all convertible between one another. Just because fiat took over doesn't mean the others were destroyed/worthless.

I think BTC is the same way. I have very little doubts that it will be taken over by other currencies. But I think it will remain a main investment vehicle and therefore still have its use/value. It just won't be what we use for day-to-day transacting.

Let's take a bunch of loosely-correlated facts, without any examination of context or cause-and-effect relationships, and hope the process of extrapolating conclusions from all this returns results more accurate than a random number generator.

[ranlo]

People look at things the wrong way. Let's use a real-world example to show it:

Gold was a form of money. Silver was its lesser counterpart.
Fiat was created, based on gold. Now fiat is the main currency, while gold/silver are investment vehicles.

All of these have value. They are all convertible between one another. Just because fiat took over doesn't mean the others were destroyed/worthless.

I think BTC is the same way. I have very little doubts that it will be taken over by other currencies. But I think it will remain a main investment vehicle and therefore still have its use/value. It just won't be what we use for day-to-day transacting.

Let's take a bunch of loosely-correlated facts, without any examination of context or cause-and-effect relationships, and hope the process of extrapolating conclusions from all this returns results more accurate than a random number generator.

Deal. My result came out to be "42." Yours?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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

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

I read that whole spiel. Totally transparent effort to create a fuss where there is none.

TL;DR: "You actually can do some sort-of-blockchain-like things that are potentially interesting without having a monetary token, if you do it centralized or basically centralized. For actual decentralized applications, well, they can be done but the onus is on YOU to make the impossible possible so I'm just going to handwave that away."

--

You can separate "Bitcoin from the blockchain" if you're flexible enough with your definition of the word "blockchain" and you use it build something completely different than Bitcoin without any of the decentralized aspects that make it so special and uniquely useful. But at that point you're more just trying to leverage a buzzword than doing anything that warrants mention alongside Bitcoin.

[nanobrain]

You boys need to go and play in the fresh air for a while.

[cypherdoc]

In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.

So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.

That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks

so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea:  we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least.  but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!

In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.

Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.

try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load.  it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only.

i'm making this harder?  eye of the beholder.  i'd say the Blockstream ppl are the ones making this hard.  especially when it comes to expanding the block size.  i've even heard one of them wanting to let Bitcoin bump up against the 1MB limit just to "see what happens".  a cynic would say it's b/c of their for profit bid on the SC concept altho i'll give 'em a pass on their face value arguments about "dangers" to doing so.

if anything, as a vocal Sound Money advocate, you'd think i'd be opposed to increasing the block size to steer Bitcoin towards being a gold like reserve currency which should, in theory, drive its exchange value to the Moon.  instead, i'm all for innovation and am willing to compromise with the ppl who envision Bitcoin as a payment network which can only be accomplished by lifting the 1MB limit.  that's my compromise for this project as that is how firmly i believe that innovation ought to occur on MC, not SC's.  

edit:  btw, i didn't see your comment on the exchange graphs i posted above showing that Bitcoin is, in fact, suppressing XCP, Bit-X, and MC

[cypherdoc]

In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.

So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.

That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks

so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea:  we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least.  but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!

In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.

Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.

The value of the currency unit is not lost but the value of the "system" consisting of the main chain plus the currency unit may be degraded if an alternative chain becomes dominant. The main chain would exist only for the purposes of mining distribution, and then once distribution is negligible or complete, not at all.

I see nothing particularly wrong with this, as it is an "upgrade path" but I think cypherdoc sees it as dilutive of the original Bitcoin system (which he would rather see improved-in-place rather than replaced).

i can't see how the value of the currency unit is not lost when passing thru to a SC.  the combo of unit + MC is what secures its value so w/o the original hashing power of the MC, the unit ceases to have equivalent value.  plus, all the risk of moving the unit over to the other side of a high friction 2wp that prevents seamless passage for at least 2d and is based on an spv lookback proof.

yes, that is my fear, that SC's dilute the value of the MC and thus the entire Bitcoin system.  one of the major purposes of SC's is to enable all sorts of other speculative asset trading.  i think that takes away from Bitcoin as an alternative form of money.  remember that the fiat money crisis is the major problem we have today and is what is enabling all the trickle down problems throughout the economy.  this is why all the "BC-only" crowd are working hard to get you to ignore Bitcoin "the currency".

[sporket]

...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load. ...

Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this.  Some additional plumbing is its only hope

[cypherdoc]

...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load. ...

Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this.  Some additional plumbing is its only hope

-

since you're so into images, NLC, tell me who needed an emergency transfusion?:

[cypherdoc]

crap, i'm getting on planes all day.  seem to get into these discussions at these times...

[Meuh6879]

Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this.  Some additional plumbing is its only hope

Well, you can use an other illustration ... 

[sporket]

...
since you're so into images, NLC, tell me who needed an emergency transfusion?:
[giant pic]

OMG, that really is something, Cypher!  Looks like USD is just absolute crap!

And yet...

USD price continues to rise vis-a-vis BTC
BTC is even shittier shit than USD
To fail so hard...

[cypherdoc]

...
since you're so into images, NLC, tell me who needed an emergency transfusion?:
[giant pic]

OMG, that really is something, Cypher!  Looks like USD is just absolute crap!

And yet...

USD price continues to rise vis-a-vis BTC
BTC is even shittier shit than USD
To fail so hard...

Dude, I can get 244 of them for one measly bitcoin! Can you imagine that!

[sporket]

^Not for long

[cypherdoc]

^Not for long

I know, I know.

I'll be able to get a whole lot Moar!

[sporket]

^A lifetime of organic solvent abuse is catching up to you, cypher.
Please head down to the hospital while you can still do it under your own steam

...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load. ...

Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this.  Some additional plumbing is its only hope

[Spaceman_Spiff]

try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load.  it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only.

Actually (though I don't know if anyone has ever done this on a human), this works fine in mice.  Look up 'parabiosis'.

[cypherdoc]

try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load.  it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only.

Actually (though I don't know if anyone has ever done this on a human), this works fine in mice.  Look up 'parabiosis'.

Conjoined (that's conjoined, not coinjoined )  twins are identical twins[1] joined in utero. A rare phenomenon, the occurrence is estimated to range from 1 in 49,000 births to 1 in 189,000 births, with a somewhat higher incidence in Southwest Asia, Africa and Brazil.[2] Approximately half are stillborn, and a smaller fraction of pairs born alive have abnormalities incompatible with life.
Thoraco-omphalopagus (28% of cases):[6] Two bodies fused from the upper chest to the lower chest. These twins usually share a heart, and may also share the liver or part of the digestive system.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins

[cypherdoc]

^A lifetime of organic solvent abuse is catching up to you, cypher.
Please head down to the hospital while you can still do it under your own steam

...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours.  see if your heart can handle the extra load. ...

Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this.  Some additional plumbing is its only hope

sporket, you've busted a sproket.