Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[guy_wonderful]

Another one?
Brent for 60 bucks?
Why not.
Althougt I'm not shorting this one... Dont realy care. 60$, $120 or $30.

Just short daytrading, periodically. So I will lose nothing if it climbs up fast.
Trend is clearly bearish +++

[Adrian-x]

Sidechain offers much more than scalability.

- Assurance contracts
- Time-shifted fees
- Demurrage
- Subsidy
- Co-signed SPV proofs
- SNARKs
- ...

and all possible combination  :-) (endless opportunities)

Edit:
While main protocol intact. No one have to bother with sidechain. Only use if you like feature of sidechain.

I just dont see it in sidechain, any sidechain features are limited by the reliance on Bitcoins POW Merge Mining, true innovation will be multifaceted, something a spin-off could seed.
As for all the other endless opportunities, I see Open Transaction doing a better job in a trust less environment on top of (with) Bitcoin.   

[cypherdoc]

Sidechain offers much more than scalability.

- Assurance contracts
- Time-shifted fees
- Demurrage
- Subsidy
- Co-signed SPV proofs
- SNARKs
- ...

and all possible combination  :-) (endless opportunities)

Edit:
While main protocol intact. No one have to bother with sidechain. Only use if you like feature of sidechain.

I just dont see it in sidechain, any sidechain features are limited by the reliance on Bitcoins POW Merge Mining, true innovation will be multifaceted, something a spin-off could seed.
As for all the other endless opportunities, I see Open Transaction doing a better job in a trust less environment on top of (with) Bitcoin.  

i agree.  merge mining seems to be the only chance SC's have to be secure.  however, that comes at the expense of centralization and 51% attacks.

furthermore, the upside potential of BTC is so enormous, i doubt any of these would get any traction.

[cypherdoc]

get ready to ask your Q's!

Mr. Back and Mr. Maxwell will hold an AMA (“ask me anything”) session on the popular social network site Reddit Thursday.

[Odalv]

Sidechain offers much more than scalability.

- Assurance contracts
- Time-shifted fees
- Demurrage
- Subsidy
- Co-signed SPV proofs
- SNARKs
- ...

and all possible combination  :-) (endless opportunities)

Edit:
While main protocol intact. No one have to bother with sidechain. Only use if you like feature of sidechain.

I just dont see it in sidechain, any sidechain features are limited by the reliance on Bitcoins POW Merge Mining, true innovation will be multifaceted, something a spin-off could seed.
As for all the other endless opportunities, I see Open Transaction doing a better job in a trust less environment on top of (with) Bitcoin.  

SideChain can work with Bitcoin (as currency ...  1:1 exchange  SDCoin <-> Bitcoin at protocol level) there is no need to create an Alt(Shit)Coin. but it is not restricted (some SideChain can use different exchange rate, but you will know this before enter SC).

a) You can make Bitcoin transaction  (lock my bitcoins .. I cannot use(spend) them any more in bitcoin network)
b) SideChain will see ... your bicoins are locked -> we will credit your SC address with N  SDCoins
c)  now you are able to create new transaction in SideChain  (go short, go long, transfer in 1s, ... get interest, lose by inflation ... )
d) and finally .. You can make SideChain transaction  (destroy my SideChainCoins ) and release locked bitcoins (inverse step a ... only you know how to unlock portion of locked bitcoins ... you traded "a secret" and now you know how to unlock some of them )

[cypherdoc]

updated list

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k1ayi/adam_back_greg_maxwell_and_pieter_wuille_will_be/

[lebing]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

[sidhujag]

We (I) are shorting gold from 2008
Target 200-400 for now.

So you're underwater for around 6 years?

Who cares. This position is planned more than for decade (with stops in around 7k (LOL)). if for some reason gold will climb to 3000 tomorow not even one of my eyebrows will flinch.
Typical long term trade.

Either your risk reward sucks or you picked the wrong place to put your money... you would be a bad financial advisor.

[Melbustus]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

The alt-coin market has never been rational.

[cypherdoc]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

The alt-coin market has never been rational.

SC's are still just an idea.  just like TC's and Ethereum.  until they get a working implementation going, alts are gonna hang around.

and it's still not clear whether SC's get off the ground.  there are alot of unhappy ppl cuz of the for-profit company these guys represent and the power to push code of their choice to maximize that profit.

[brg444]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

http://blog.pebble.io/post/100702644738/on-sidechains-bitcoin-maximalism-and-freedom

the altcoin market is clinging to the fundamental misunderstanding of wanting to have "competing" protocols for money

[smooth]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

Perhaps your notion of why altcoins have value is incorrect.

For example, one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin (both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise). Given that side chains are totally unproven, with uncertain effects, it is entirely possible that Litecoin could go rationally go up in value due to side chains.

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

Also, let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers. That could be good or bad for the rest of Bitcoin. I'm sure they would argue (both individually as a business) it will only be good. I'm not entirely sold on that premise.

[Peter R]

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

If it was your choice smooth, would you fork bitcoin to permit (true) sidechains? 

[cypherdoc]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

Perhaps your notion of why altcoins have value is incorrect.

For example, one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin (both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise). Given that side chains are totally unproven, with uncertain effects, it is entirely possible that Litecoin could go rationally go up in value due to side chains.

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

Also, let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers. That could be good or bad for the rest of Bitcoin. I'm sure they would argue (both individually as a business) it will only be good. I'm not entirely sold on that premise.

Yes, lots of linear thinking going on over in the sidechain camp. I keep bringing up the possible negative effects of a sidechain losing 20 to 30% of all btc and all they can say is "that will just make my coin worth more!".

[cypherdoc]

https://twitter.com/austinhill/status/525032498049593346

[lebing]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

Perhaps your notion of why altcoins have value is incorrect.

For example, one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin (both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise). Given that side chains are totally unproven, with uncertain effects, it is entirely possible that Litecoin could go rationally go up in value due to side chains.

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

Also, let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers. That could be good or bad for the rest of Bitcoin. I'm sure they would argue (both individually as a business) it will only be good. I'm not entirely sold on that premise.

one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin

-- I never understood the hedge argument for litecoin. If something goes wrong with bitcoin, why wouldn't it also go wrong with litecoin? After all they share the majority of their code.

let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers.

-- We don't know who scooped up who - though I guess we could ask in the AMA tomorrow. The point I was making is that they are a part of this project, which to me is a major indicator of the probability of the success of this project getting incorporated into the code.

[lebing]

I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.

Perhaps your notion of why altcoins have value is incorrect.

For example, one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin (both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise). Given that side chains are totally unproven, with uncertain effects, it is entirely possible that Litecoin could go rationally go up in value due to side chains.

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

Also, let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers. That could be good or bad for the rest of Bitcoin. I'm sure they would argue (both individually as a business) it will only be good. I'm not entirely sold on that premise.

Yes, lots of linear thinking going on over in the sidechain camp. I keep bringing up the possible negative effects of a sidechain losing 20 to 30% of all btc and all they can say is "that will just make my coin worth more!".

20-30% of all of the bitcoins? Worst case it should be far lower, somewhere closer to 2% if one of the side chains fail. Its the same concept at play now - the larger the cap, the larger the target. If there is an exploit, someone will find it given a sufficient motivation to do so and that will be far less than a billion dollars.

[smooth]

-- I never understood the hedge argument for litecoin. If something goes wrong with bitcoin, why wouldn't it also go wrong with litecoin? After all they share the majority of their code.

1. You ignored this part: "both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise." That could include all manner of things that have little to nothing to do with existing code, including mining centralization, bad decisions by core developers, bad influences by existing or new commercial interests, too cozy with regulators, too hostile to regulators, being the target of a deliberate attack simply because it is bigger, etc.

2. Let's not forget that Bitcoin is vastly more valuable than Litecoin or anything else. Thus a market-impled hedge suggests that such a result is very unlikely, but not zero. Overall I think Bitcoin is around 90% of the total cryptocoin market cap (LTC is <10%). We are arguing about an edge case, but all this "sidechains/altchains are better than altcoins" argument is trying to do after all is drive down that 10%, which is pretty small to begin with. Can you really, with 90%+ confidence, say that nothing could go seriously wrong with Bitcoin that wouldn't somehow benefit some other coin? I think the answer is no, with or without side chains, but perhaps you disagree.

-- We don't know who scooped up who - though I guess we could ask in the AMA tomorrow. The point I was making is that they are a part of this project, which to me is a major indicator of the probability of the success of this project getting incorporated into the code.

I agree with you that this milestone has increased the probability of side chains being developed and deployed. It is a conceptual leap go from that fairly obvious fact to what the eventual outcome might be.

[smooth]

https://twitter.com/austinhill/status/525032498049593346

The technology can't be effectively evaluated or understood when separated from the economic and business considerations any more than a coherent analysis of Bitcoin can occur without consideration of its economics. The are inseparable. His position is unsound.

[smooth]

Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree.

If it was your choice smooth, would you fork bitcoin to permit (true) sidechains? 

Not without better vetting of the cryptography, which would likely take years.

Correction: I didn't realize they are proposing the SPV-proof method for coin return rather than the zkSNARK method.

Given that, cryptography is a lesser concern, though I would be still be concerned about mining incentives (which aren't that well understood for even Bitcoin itself).

The summary is that I really don't know if this is a good idea. I'd want to see much more careful analysis first.