Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[dEBRUYNE]

There is also a black swan in form of Monero sidechains brewing in the future

Will never fly due to the consolidation effect:

I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.

There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains.

So you're basically saying XMR will never fly because it is (currenlty) pegged to BTC? What is your opinion if it won't be pegged anymore?

[TPTB_need_war]

There is also a black swan in form of Monero sidechains brewing in the future

Will never fly due to the consolidation effect:

I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.

There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains.

So you're basically saying XMR will never fly because it is (currenlty) pegged to BTC? What is your opinion if it won't be pegged anymore?

Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?

My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.

[cypherdoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39f6j6/bitnodes_which_recently_updated_its_crawling/cs342fr

[cypherdoc]

with all the BS-FUD swirling around from all the armchair logisticians, the safest, wisest course of action is to fall back onto Satoshi's original vision, grow Bitcoin proper.

[tvbcof]

Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?

My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.

The interesting thing about sidechains is that the could be backed by anything.  As a matter of fact, almost anything would be a better choice than a Bitcoin which is under management by Mike Hearn since the one thing which a backing store (be it gold, crypto, whatever) cannot tolerate are fungibility problems and they are the next phase in XT and probably the next item of focus if he get's Bitcoin moved under them.

If the idea of moving Bitcoin under XT does not become DOA, I'll have to bite the bullet and start researching alts.  I doubt that the Blockstream guys are going to just crawl away and die in the unlikely event that Hearn wins and Bitcoin becomes XT.  And I suspect that the Blockstream guys will see very clearly the impossibility of using XT as a sidechain backing solution.

There is always MP's 'real core' project which, as a hodler, I would be a default part of.  I'm bored of Bitcoin as a fairly useless toy for the elite however and really would like to see a way for it to be put to a more broad use for humanity.  Without killing it of course.

[dEBRUYNE]

There is also a black swan in form of Monero sidechains brewing in the future

Will never fly due to the consolidation effect:

I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.

There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains.

So you're basically saying XMR will never fly because it is (currenlty) pegged to BTC? What is your opinion if it won't be pegged anymore?

Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?

My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.

I get your point now, misread your previous comment a bit. I agree that sidechains on XMR and sidechains in general are a bit silly. Anyway, sidechains on XMR will probably take another couple of years, if they even get released.

[TPTB_need_war]

Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?

My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.

The interesting thing about sidechains is that the could be backed by anything.  As a matter of fact, almost anything would be a better choice than a Bitcoin which is under management by Mike Hearn since the one thing which a backing store (be it gold, crypto, whatever) cannot tolerate are fungibility problems and they are the next phase in XT and probably the next item of focus if he get's Bitcoin moved under them.

If the idea of moving Bitcoin under XT does not become DOA, I'll have to bite the bullet and start researching alts.  I doubt that the Blockstream guys are going to just crawl away and die in the unlikely event that Hearn wins and Bitcoin becomes XT.  And I suspect that the Blockstream guys will see very clearly the impossibility of using XT as a sidechain backing solution.

There is always MP's 'real core' project which, as a hodler, I would be a default part of.  I'm bored of Bitcoin as a fairly useless toy for the elite however and really would like to see a way for it to be put to a more broad use for humanity.  Without killing it of course.

Does Mike Hearn really control Bitcoin?

In my mind, BTC is owned by the community and the community will assert its will via the voting for Blockstream pegged side chains economically.

Once I realized there is a way for altcoins to leverage pegged BTC side chains without being subsumed by them, then it all appears to fit synergistically together in a competitive ecosystem. One of the key innovations needed is to eliminate the 50% attack so that side chains aren't hostage nor hold Core hostage.

Thanks for pushing my initial (incomplete) thinking on side chains.

[cypherdoc]

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.

[TPTB_need_war]

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

Overreaching diatribes that don't analyze the details are devoid of information.

There are many, many ways what you wrote about is not necessarily true. I've detailed several scenarios for control via centralization upthread (and Hearn might be one head of a centralization-by-regulation monster).

Yet it seems you are arguing that your hero Gavin (and Satoshi) has (have) no power.

[cypherdoc]

all of the armchair logic spewed forth from financially conflicted logisticians, including myself, are invalid until "proven" otherwise.  the only reliable, proven scheme that has worked to this day is Satoshi's original blockchain which has been constructed with the proper incentives.  this proven mainchain should be nurtured, cherished, protected at all costs to avoid subversion.

[TPTB_need_war]

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

[tvbcof]

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.

Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)

Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.

I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job.  The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.

[tvbcof]

Does Mike Hearn really control Bitcoin?
...

I can only speak to my observations, but it really does seem to me that at this point Mike Hearn controls Gavin Andresen as effectively as a hand inserted into a sock controls a puppet.  This was not always the case, but it seems (to me) that within the last year or so it has become very hard to not notice.

Now controlling Mr. Andresen is not equivalent to controlling Bitcoin (thank God!) and the frustration of this seems to be showing on Mr. Hearn, but it is a relatively potent tool.  And 'if all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' as they say.

[TPTB_need_war]

tvbcof, I liked your upthread point that Bitcoin is really about who has the power to do shit.

Pegged side chains are apparently coming without any changes to Core source.

As for larger blocks, apparently no one has enough power to make this happen. MPEX will make it a war of attrition until pegged side chains arrive.

After that GavinCoin can be launched as a pegged side chain (which MPEX can't attack due to the peg) and the market can vote.

So why is Cypherdoc wasting our time?

[Adrian-x]

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

[TPTB_need_war]

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.

Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.

[Adrian-x]

Cypherdoc I have a better suggestion. How about we observe what happens? And you shut up.

I doubt your arguments have been informational enough to impact any of the key actors in this process.

I don't think Cypherdoc the guy with the microphone and an auditorium full of devotees, I think the people you want to shut up are the minority being paid $21M to spread there version of Bitcoin.
I'd condone your approach if you asked them to shut up.  

Why should we stop pegged side chains (and can we)? What is the problem with them? Refer to my prior post for my logic.

Anything that pegged side chains have the power to do, can be done even without Blockstream. The beans have been spilled.

I see only positive outcomes should Sidechains be limited in functionality released as Sidecains Elements.  To answer your question you have 250 pages of reading to do to catch up,- hint scroll back to the date the sidechain paper was released it will give you a good start date. (on the up side the content is a lot more focused and coherent than the constant word flow you project in here at the moment ;-)

[cypherdoc]

even under the "benevolent dictator" scenario, that principal core dev would not control Bitcoin and it would not be decentralized.

the decentralization comes from all the full nodes, miners, and user base which is spread round the world with the economic majority calling the shots of which the "benevolent dictator" must listen and respond to otherwise someone just creates a hard fork to which the economic majority will migrate to all possible b/c of open source and Satoshi's original design.

which is why we need to stick to Satoshi's original vision and reject bastardizations of it like SC's.

Did Satoshi's vision include kludging around the problem that the 'correct' chain may not be the longest one and it might be necessary to feed auxiliary data to SPV clients such that they could make choose the appropriate choice (since, of course, the user is incapable of doing so on his own?)

Just curious because your 'benevolent dictator' seems to see it as a distinct enough possibility to publicly muse about.

I would suggest that once such a solution was in place, it would be an extra tool in the taint-coin toolbox even if abstract layer economic methods themselves failed to do the job.  The economic-only methods themselves might fail if Bitcoin cannot be bloated sufficiently so it would be good to have a back-up I suppose.

depending on what majority % XT decides to turn on the large block setting, i don't think the bolded part will happen.  if enough of the economic majority switched to XT the others would have to follow. 

[cypherdoc]

would the brainless stop perseverating over MPEX?

anyone who tries to manipulate the mkts like they're threatening to do will get creamed.

[jmw74]

I don't get all this hand-wringing about hard forks.

Everyone is paranoid that their fork won't be popular (whether among end-users or miners).

They seem to forget that on a world scale, nobody gives a crap about bitcoin still. Whether your fork occupies 0.0004% or 0.00004% of the world money supply is a rather minor distinction.

Look at it another way, would it be that horrible if your fork of bitcoin was "only" as popular as bitcoin was in 2011? That didn't stop anyone in 2011. And your fork would be way easier to use than bitcoin was then.

Put yet another way, I'd rather bitcoin be "right" than "popular". Whichever fork is what I want, that's what I'm going to use. If I wanted a "popular" currency and payment system, the dollar and Visa would be obvious choices, but that's not what any of us want.