iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:23:48 AM |
|
Sidechains are not altcoins, nor are they "watered down," nor are their block chain's "seperate." Do you guys know what the phrase "TWO WAY PEG" means? Yes, something that is impossible. Ask the SNB (down) or PBOC (up). Fiat, LOL. Do you know what the phrase "ATOMIC TRANSACTION" means? (Keep acting stupid, I can do this all day.) Keep acting smart. NMF you started blathering about fiat nonsense in a discussion about crypto and e-cash. Don't worry, TWP and AT are our friends! https://people.xiph.org/~greg/blockstream.gmaxwell.elements.talk.060815.pdfI couldn't be bothered to read that. OK, here's the version for verbal learners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:28:38 AM |
|
This is a fight which, BY DESIGN, you Gavinistas cannot win. Poor thing, no wonder it's "doing your head in." Just incredible how much crap an early adopter can write. He just writes like an angry internet troll. His posts contain mostly personal attacks. His posts contain a lot of personal attacks. Yet only the simpletons clinging to these "because offended" are unable to recognize the insights. Truth hurts indeed Can you explain which insights you're referring to? It looks to me like mostly technical misunderstandings about how a fork would play out combined with a lack of knowledge about Bitcoin. For example, explain how this is true: "If Gavincoin wins, Bitcoin holdhouts lose nothing and Gavin supporters gain nothing. If Gavincoin flounders, Gavin supporters lose everything" Hey iCE! This is your opportunity to show us that you are not just a brainless bully. I've already shown you. Only the simpletons clinging to "because offended" are unable to recognize the insights.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:29:31 AM |
|
Sidechains are not altcoins, nor are they "watered down," nor are their block chain's "seperate." Do you guys know what the phrase "TWO WAY PEG" means? Yes, something that is impossible. Ask the SNB (down) or PBOC (up). Fiat, LOL. Do you know what the phrase "ATOMIC TRANSACTION" means? (Keep acting stupid, I can do this all day.) Keep acting smart. NMF you started blathering about fiat nonsense in a discussion about crypto and e-cash. Don't worry, TWP and AT are our friends! https://people.xiph.org/~greg/blockstream.gmaxwell.elements.talk.060815.pdfI couldn't be bothered to read that. OK, here's the version for verbal learners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrMI couldn't be bothered to watch that.
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:31:11 AM |
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:34:11 AM |
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch. Do you even know what you're talking about?
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:34:28 AM |
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
Indeed. They will be making "A List' next.... I was told that "book burnings" would be next. Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out? It's getting confusing. And why are you still here in the land of oppression, instead of running free and wild at https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt ? Did Hearn set up a checkpoint, or what? Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:40:10 AM |
|
With respect to Nick Most-Likely-To-Be-Satoshi-And-That-Is-Worth-A-Lot-Even-If -He-Isn't Szabo, I despise the "$4 billion system" argument. Every one of those investors knows it is a high risk asset with the potential for a 1000x return (and therefore, by any reasonable economics or logic, enormous risks). These are not widows and orphans.
Maybe the block size increase is a bad idea and maybe XT is a bad way to do it, but that argument is absurd sensationalism at its worst.
If anyone is aware Bitcoin is an experiment, it is Nick Szabo. The specific figure is of no particular matter to his argument That's exactly why including it is sensationalism. Although I have to say to me it has the opposite effect: Only $4 billion? Good, still very safe to take some changes.
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:40:36 AM |
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch. Do you even know what you're talking about? make a point or shut up.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:41:57 AM |
|
With respect to Nick Most-Likely-To-Be-Satoshi-And-That-Is-Worth-A-Lot-Even-If -He-Isn't Szabo, I despise the "$4 billion system" argument. Every one of those investors knows it is a high risk asset with the potential for a 1000x return (and therefore, by any reasonable economics or logic, enormous risks). These are not widows and orphans.
Maybe the block size increase is a bad idea and maybe XT is a bad way to do it, but that argument is absurd sensationalism at its worst.
If anyone is aware Bitcoin is an experiment, it is Nick Szabo. The specific figure is of no particular matter to his argument That's exactly why including it is sensationalism. Although I have to say to me it has the opposite effect: Only $4 billion? Good, still very safe to take some changes. Or maybe: Only $4 billion? This thing obviously still needs a lot of work.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:50:31 AM |
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch. Do you even know what you're talking about? make a point or shut up. Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol. A softfork would allow more freedom in their functions, features and decentralization.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 17, 2015, 12:59:38 AM Last edit: August 17, 2015, 01:16:27 AM by Peter R Merited by iCEBREAKER (1) |
|
Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out? It's getting confusing.
Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve. When t = t*.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:02:55 AM |
|
With respect to Nick Most-Likely-To-Be-Satoshi-And-That-Is-Worth-A-Lot-Even-If -He-Isn't Szabo, I despise the "$4 billion system" argument. Every one of those investors knows it is a high risk asset with the potential for a 1000x return (and therefore, by any reasonable economics or logic, enormous risks). These are not widows and orphans.
Maybe the block size increase is a bad idea and maybe XT is a bad way to do it, but that argument is absurd sensationalism at its worst.
If anyone is aware Bitcoin is an experiment, it is Nick Szabo. The specific figure is of no particular matter to his argument, but it's worth noting the experiment has gained considerable scope, such that a significant real world financial aspect exists and should be taken into account (in this case, by the Planning Dept.). That's exactly why including it is sensationalism. Although I have to say to me it has the opposite effect: Only $4 billion? Good, still very safe to take some changes. Or maybe: Only $4 billion? This thing obviously still needs a lot of work. The bolded parts are exactly why including it is not sensationalism. The specific figure is a just neutral fact and was not sensationalized. It's not like he used ZOMG ALLCAPS FOUR BILLION or wrote out $4,000,000,000.00 with all the zeros. You are exaggerating, just like when you used "maybe" in front of "block size increase is a bad idea."
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:24:13 AM |
|
iCE please, i beg you, take your meds!
Haldol 1 tab po qid, as directed, # to be dispensed: 10000 tabs, 1000 refills.
4 pills a day keeps the doctor away!
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:49:27 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't.
|
We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
August 17, 2015, 01:59:44 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here?
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:08:09 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here? Elements never happened? Which "sidechain" are we talking about here? What is the "fundamental" change to Bitcoin?
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:24:10 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here? you name it; they aim to sidechain it.
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:29:26 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here? you name it; they aim to sidechain it. I think you're missing the point. The whole conversation is here: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txtIt is quite clear that they consider sidechains to be altcoins backed by bitcoin. Because, well, quite obviously, that exactly what sidechains are. Until of course that got rebranded.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:46:20 AM |
|
SC's are clearly altcoins.
Different class. 'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin. Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does. 'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors. 'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core. i see sidecoins as inflationary. the author can choose any issuance or inflation schedule he pleases to be backed by scBTC. when viewed this way, the entire fiat money system could be viewed as a sidechain with USD as the sidecoin with gold backing at least before 1971. Sidechains are by definition not inflationary. That's the point of the two-way peg and is completely elementary. I know you have at least a working understanding of the meaning of the words 'inflationary' and 'deflationary'. Thus, I think you are being a lying and deceitful piece of shit. After the Hashfast shilling funds you pocketed I know you have it in you so that is be far the strongest hypothesis. Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system. Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible. Disaster!
It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees. It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor. This is the way most internet services work these days.
total misunderstanding of this argument. you're talking about individual tx fees which can stay cheap w/o a block limit. what will grow is the total aggregate amount of tx fees to pay miners as the reward dissipates and as the userbase grows unconstrained. these meaningful fees will allow Bitcoin to keep secure by growing mining security. With sidechains not only is the total Bitcoin 'market cap' by definition the sum total of the value of all sidechains combine plus the native Bitcoin user's holdings, but fees from every sidechain transaction could be fractional and agragated into a significant per-transaction fee on the Bitcoin network. Yes, the cut that a sidechain might take would subtract from what Bitcoin operators get for running the native network infrastructure, but sidechains will have to compete with one another, and probably most sidechains will extract value in the manner you bloatchain guys want for Bitcoin (by milking intel out of users) or be run at a loss to further a domain specific goal. (e.g., I would use a sidecoin akin to what namecoin is doing because distributed and uncensorable domain DNS is something I care about.) You have never to my recollection answered any of these points. Whether it is simply because they are above your comprehension, or whether it is because you are focused on your task of getting Bitcoin centralized I do not know. A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this. Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.
as the userbase spreads out, so will full node and mining distribution. this will be good as we need to move away from the areas of highest concentration today, that being N. America and Europe. That's a funny argument to hear from someone who just advocated bloating Bitcoin in order to freeze out Chinese infrastructure providers by exploiting the native bandwidth problems brought on by their national censorship program. Here again is another area of risk that you studiously ignore; the idea that network censorship is even possible here in 'the land of the free.' If it fucks up the Chinese and their ability to run Bitcoin infrastructure, I can promise you that it will do the same only worse here if/when it is put into place. Again, the idea that it _won't_ be put into place in a fiat economic crisis where crypto-currency is gaining a foothold is absurd to me. I have to think you at least worry for your stash that such a thing is possible lending more strength to the idea that there is something fishy about your goals here. I won't even touch on the observation of the absurdity that full nodes and mining distribution will 'spread out' as it becomes more impractical to operate them. The evidence over the last few years speaks loudly enough, and we are still at 1MB. brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC. in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC? answer: no. they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.
The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily. People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.
You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know. With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.
edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)
no, SC's encourage speculative money to chase sidecoins, scBTC, and/or any other speculative asset they choose to sell on the SC like Truthcoins. given that these SC's are bound to be less secure, they will have much greater failure rates than if they just bought BTC itself or invested in businesses that deal in BTC directly. what we want instead is for speculators to invest in BTC itself to drive the market price much higher. which is actually needed to allow large $million tx's to occur on MC w/o causing volatility. that, or invest in merchants/businesses that can service the userbase growth that a no block limit will encourage. The beauty and strength of sidechains is that they are isolated from Bitcoin and Bitcoin is isolated from them. That is one of the main goals of the project. A whole sidechain system is just another user to Bitcoin. People can speculate until the cows come home and I'm sure they will. Some of them will also fail and/or implode. The worst that will happen is that some Bitcoin get lost into the ether of nothingness. That would be deflationary. Sidechains, just like Bitcoin or gold, are something with certain kinds of risks and things that people need to be appropriately wary of and not lazy in applying a risk management strategy. No magic bullets. There are certainly some extra protections though. At the end of the day they are no stronger than the Bitcoin (or other backing store if you bloatchainers fuck up Bitcoin) which serves as backing.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 03:14:46 AM |
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin. 00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. Which "altcoin" are they talking about here? you name it; they aim to sidechain it. I think you're missing the point. The whole conversation is here: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txtIt is quite clear that they consider sidechains to be altcoins backed by bitcoin. Because, well, quite obviously, that exactly what sidechains are. Until of course that got rebranded. that was a good read. note the complexity. BlueMatt brought that up along with the greater size of the proof required for altcoins to return to MC: "00:37:09 <BlueMatt> yea, though depending on cutting-edge crypto is ugly..."
|
|
|
|
|