Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

[ranlo]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Because Bitcoin can not be used in the real world for purchases, in a reliable manner. Nobody wants to wait an hour or more to purchase gasoline, or buy groceries. These things hold Bitcoin back. Lowering the confirmation times would only cause more issues with the entire system, not to mention the majority of people would have to agree on the change.

While Bitcoin is an awesome thing, it does have its flaws that are just not likely to be fixed.

[klee]

I see fanatic people...

[cypherdoc]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Because Bitcoin can not be used in the real world for purchases, in a reliable manner. Nobody wants to wait an hour or more to purchase gasoline, or buy groceries. These things hold Bitcoin back. Lowering the confirmation times would only cause more issues with the entire system, not to mention the majority of people would have to agree on the change.

While Bitcoin is an awesome thing, it does have its flaws that are just not likely to be fixed.

what you're arguing about is about the Bitcoin concept as a whole. 

what i'm discussing here assumes Bitcoin will be successful, arguably, and brings up the concept that the blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.

[BldSwtTrs]

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.

[cypherdoc]

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.

can you tell us exactly what delegates responsibilities are?

[majamalu]

the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.

I've been saying this for years. Think of all the tricks that people have to do to protect their savings nowadays. Even in its current form, Bitcoin is easier - and perhaps safer - than every other way, at least for people that are able to manage (or learn how to manage) secure passwords.

[CoinRocka]

"It's as good as bitcoin"   

[cypherdoc]

the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.

I've been saying this for years. Think of all the tricks that people have to do to protect their savings nowadays. Even in its current form, Bitcoin is easier - and perhaps safer - than every other way, at least for people that are able to manage (or learn how to manage) secure passwords.

so yes, the fact that Bitcoin is money is what brings us all here. it's the most liquid and generally accepted of all "assets".  Bitcoin is first and foremost a financial concept.  that being a fixed supply new form of money.  Satoshi took that precept and racked his brain trying to figure out a way to bring technology to bear to enforce that concept.  he came up with the blockchain as a specific technological implementation to achieve this.  it employs POW to incentivize mining.  miners jump all over this and mine like hell to try and capture block rewards and fees which comes in the form of money.  not stock, not bonds, not debt, not assurance contracts, not derivatives.  money.  with any of these Bitcoin 2.0 platforms, i don't see a truly strong incentive to mine those blockchains.  as a miner, i wouldn't.

all those different forms of assets can be thought of as play tools of Wall Street=the minority.  the masses represent the majority in terms of sheer numbers, however, and they possess very little of those investments today.  they just want their money to be safe.  Bitcoin represents the first time in history where they have that chance.  the stakes are much higher in inventing a new form of money compared to these other assets.  look at the forex markets compared to all other markets.  they're huge in comparison.  and it's in the markets involving money where the real problem lies due to the Fed and central banks.  i think in the long run the masses prefer Bitcoin as an investment than any alt.

hence, the blockchain may end up being only applicable to Bitcoin as money.  i can't be sure of this but i think it's quite possible given how things are evolving.

[BldSwtTrs]

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

In Bitcoin mining pools are in effect delegates. There are about 10, whereas with Bitshares they will be 100. Plus users will be able to vote in order to fire delegates if they mess up.

can you tell us exactly what delegates responsibilities are?

They will take turn to generate the next block which saves the transaction, and will receive transaction fees to do so.

The software client will monitor what the delegates are doing and automatically remove a delegate from his position if he has a bad behavior.

Then there is the transaction as proof of stake (TaPos) part, where each users validate on the long run the short-term consensus establish by the delegates.

I am not a tech guy tough: http://bitshares.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/

[Adrian-x]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible.  

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

I agree with you for now in that Bitcoin will not see a rival and satoshi's technical contribution won't be matched in innovation. But there are hundreds and thousands of smart minds who can't contribute to Bitcoin directly the primary barrier being political.

Investors can't easily avoid the scam coins and given your insight all will likely evolve into $#!±coins so how does the technical input from the innovators at the start of the adoption cycle get leveraged?

I'm glad these late comer innovator are earning Bitcoin it's growing our network.

Ultimately we will never agree that Bitcoin's confirmation time is too long or too short. But we can say it's too long for X application  or too short for Y situation.

So ultimately the value will come from Bitcoin's distribution and the ideas of spin-offs.
These new alts - the anonymous ones aside will hopefully wake up before they lose there Bitcoin.,

[majamalu]

hence, the blockchain may end up being only applicable to Bitcoin as money.  i can't be sure of this but i think it's quite possible given how things are evolving.

Let me know if/when you have something written about this perspective. I would like to translate it into Spanish.

[Melbustus]

Introducing The Bitcoin:Gold Slingshot Effect.  We got it with silver and we'll get it with the next gold touch:
...

You think so? That seemed in the cards last time as well. I suppose the China/Gox/China/Dorien/China/China/IRS/China/China news got in the way. But it still feels early....we still need better exchange infrastructure, and wall-st integration before bitcoin can approach gold as an easily acquirable and safely-holdable asset class for most people.

But to date I've thought every phase of bitcoin's adoption would take longer than it has, so whatevs...

[molecular]

this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects.  we all know about Ripple now.  Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares:

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-1-nxt-asset-exchange-and-bitshares-technical-update

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

while listening to the podcast it dawned on me how centralized these Bitcoin 2.0 projects have become in the sense of depending on a core group of known devs who have a vested interest.  he even says that if something happened to him while the protocol had a problem there would be no one to really fix it.  that's bad.

Satoshi was wise to remain anonymous.  by leaving and turning the code management over to a distributed group of devs who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin, other than whatever BTC they may have bought on the free market, he fortified the Bitcoin dev process from gov't pressure.  all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects have dev teams whose personal financial success depends on the success of their product.  if the devs themselves ever get attacked by gov't their project would be finished by the mere fact that most of them have awarded themselves an upfront disproportionate share of the equity.

i am beginning to believe that blockchain technology may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.  you heard it here first.  i know what Satoshi said about scripting language and the potential to do more things like smart contracts et al but he said those things in a forum post and almost as an afterthought.  he also could be wrong about growing these products out from the blockchain from an economic and technical standpoint.  the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.

i think it's an interesting thought that blockchain technology may only ever be used to protect Bitcoin as money.  if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin.

wow, cypher. I'm sure you're aware of the boldness of the claim you make. (EDIT: if you scratch the "may", that is)

You don't back it up substantially (or do you?), so I'm not convinced (at all, to be honest). I'll try to keep it in the back of my head with an open mind, though and look for indications or reasoning that support it.

[justusranvier]

this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects.  we all know about Ripple now.  Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares:

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-1-nxt-asset-exchange-and-bitshares-technical-update

listen carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol.  simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol.  blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's.  apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus.  

while listening to the podcast it dawned on me how centralized these Bitcoin 2.0 projects have become in the sense of depending on a core group of known devs who have a vested interest.  he even says that if something happened to him while the protocol had a problem there would be no one to really fix it.  that's bad.

Satoshi was wise to remain anonymous.  by leaving and turning the code management over to a distributed group of devs who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin, other than whatever BTC they may have bought on the free market, he fortified the Bitcoin dev process from gov't pressure.  all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects have dev teams whose personal financial success depends on the success of their product.  if the devs themselves ever get attacked by gov't their project would be finished by the mere fact that most of them have awarded themselves an upfront disproportionate share of the equity.

i am beginning to believe that blockchain technology may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money.  you heard it here first.  i know what Satoshi said about scripting language and the potential to do more things like smart contracts et al but he said those things in a forum post and almost as an afterthought.  he also could be wrong about growing these products out from the blockchain from an economic and technical standpoint.  the masses don't care about these things, at least right now.  i think they just want their money to be safe.  here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives.

i think it's an interesting thought that blockchain technology may only ever be used to protect Bitcoin as money.  if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin.

I have a prediction - after all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects are dead, Open-Transactions is going to be around doing everything those projects promised to deliver, precisely because they are just building useful financial cryptography tools and not trying to create a competing currency.

The reason you haven't heard much about them is because, unlike projects that have an alt to pump, they're being more careful about who they take on as investors and are focusing more on building software correctly than building it quickly.

[rpietila]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Monero is an example of a coin that is trying to do exactly that. The devs don't hold a privileged position, there is no premine, the coin hit exchanges last week when less than 5% were mined. It takes forever to mine the rest of the coins (80% in 4 years but exponential decay).

The ways to build a monster position are - mining with multiple CPUs, - buying in the exchanges, - making markets. All these are beneficial activities for the coin. Due to high inflation, pumping is difficult/impossible (new mining alone acts as a dampener on pumps). All in all a nice coin, aiming to have real anonymity with CryptoNote coin mixing, and my first altcoin investment ever

[lebing]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Monero is an example of a coin that is trying to do exactly that. The devs don't hold a privileged position, there is no premine, the coin hit exchanges last week when less than 5% were mined. It takes forever to mine the rest of the coins (80% in 4 years but exponential decay).

The ways to build a monster position are - mining with multiple CPUs, - buying in the exchanges, - making markets. All these are beneficial activities for the coin. Due to high inflation, pumping is difficult/impossible (new mining alone acts as a dampener on pumps). All in all a nice coin, aiming to have real anonymity with CryptoNote coin mixing, and my first altcoin investment ever

Sorry to derail the thread even further, but this seems just like darkcoin? What is the benefit of this over it?

[darlidada]

I think alts amplify Bitcoin potential.

but only as testing grounds.  anything worthwhile should be assimilated into Bitcoin when possible. 

the larger issue, as indicated by impulse above, is how do any of the alts implement a distribution mechanism that comes close to what Satoshi did?  he set a very high standard of what are now considered best practices in this new virtual currency world.  i'm thinking it's impossible unless you're willing to do the entire development model for free and somehow keep yourself anonymous.  but then at that point why wouldn't you just develop/enhance the market leader itself, Bitcoin, which stands to be the ultimate winner?

Monero is an example of a coin that is trying to do exactly that. The devs don't hold a privileged position, there is no premine, the coin hit exchanges last week when less than 5% were mined. It takes forever to mine the rest of the coins (80% in 4 years but exponential decay).

The ways to build a monster position are - mining with multiple CPUs, - buying in the exchanges, - making markets. All these are beneficial activities for the coin. Due to high inflation, pumping is difficult/impossible (new mining alone acts as a dampener on pumps). All in all a nice coin, aiming to have real anonymity with CryptoNote coin mixing, and my first altcoin investment ever

Sorry to derail the thread even further, but this seems just like darkcoin? What is the benefit of this over it?

Untraceable payments, unlinkable transaction and blockchain analysis resistance. These are not promises. If you havent heard about the cryptonote technology, you can read the white paper there: https://cryptonote.org/

[rpietila]

Sorry to derail the thread even further, but this seems just like darkcoin? What is the benefit of this over it?

There has to be two things for an alt to have a snowball's chance to succeed:
- A real benefit over BTC, which is not implementable in BTC
- Slow public launch with no premine to distribute the coins fairly and widely, while keeping the network secure for years to come

MRO is the almost only altcoin ever to have a launch that qualifies. What a luck that it is one of only a few coins that fulfil the tech criterion also.

=> I bought MRO, but not darkcoin (it does not fill either, because of instamine, and problems in tech - even now it is down due to fork).

If ever a second coin comes that has real novelty value (copy of MRO of course does not count) and a good team and fair launch, I may buy it.

But true, this discussion is better in my new thread. Let's stop.

[Peter R]

=> I bought MRO

But would you have still taken a speculative position in MRO if you could freely claim a share of a spin-off clone of Monero in proportion to your bitcoin holdings?