Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

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

I could see them making money doing consulting and development for people who want a sidechain for some particular purpose.

I personally have a good deal of confidence in some of the folks involved in this effort.  Though I rarely risk much on software I cannot compile myself, I would probably used binaries released by this group as long as I felt that they had visibility.  (I use radio code blobs developed by Sam Leffler as a fr'instance.)  So their stamp in that respect could be worth something as well.  I'm thinking simply of specific sidechains which those who commissioned the work did not want opensource.  Naturally I would be highly disappointed (and very surprised) if their core work were not opensourced.

[stellar69]

Gold collapsing? Gold is at the same rate as i saw it year ago.
BTC came down to 400$ from 1200$

[lebing]

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.

Originally I wrote a much longer response but my browser froze and I got lazy re-writing it. Anyway, I still fail to see why litecoin, Monero or any other coin would be considered a hedge in the event of an issue with bitcoin. If anything a failure in bitcoin would be catastrophic for cryptocurrencies in general and would set the community back years before something else might catch on. The confidence would simply be gone. I have a hard time believing that people spent so much money investing in Litecoin because there might be a failure with bitcoin at some point down the road. That being said, maybe I need to just have less faith in humanity. 

[lebing]

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

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

Yes, I agree. This is a bullshit answer.

[dropt]

Gold collapsing? Gold is at the same rate as i saw it year ago.
BTC came down to 400$ from 1200$

This thread was started in Mar of 2012.

[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.

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

Ugh, I stopped reading here:

The idea that any cryptocurrency can be the “Internet of Money” is false. Bitcoin is not comparable to TCP/IP and the Internet in any way whatsoever.

If that statement is true, we're all done here; no cryptocurrency can ever have much value. This is fundamentally what many are not understanding; specifically the startup/tech-only focused people. They get all wide-eyed about the tech without considering the economics. They fail to realize that people need to have confidence that the dominant coin will remain dominant for a long time, or else it'll be unlikely that people will be willing to store much value in *any* coin.....and without value, the tech they're so fascinated with isn't useful.

[cypherdoc]

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're  doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.

Initially I thought the whole idea was coming from Back but according  to nullc, he was the one to spear head this. I've had many public disagreements with nullc for a long time around the economics of Bitcoin and what I've perceived to be a dismissive attitude toward non dev opinion and a misunderstanding of economics and game theory.  The bitcoin.org press centre debacle with Andreas is a  great example. I've always wondered why he and Luke were never hired by a Bitcoin company. He claims he's had lots of offers so I have to accept that. But if you watch the Princeton University video on Bitcoin with Ed Felton, you'll see he's kinda different and he admits it . Otoh, I give him major props for contributing so much to bitcoin and our technical understanding of it.  He's helped me in that regard and clearly he is respected by the other core devs.

That's what makes this play so interesting. nullc despite his own political deficiencies has managed to apparently recruit Pieter and Matt, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. Mark, I have no clue but he seems to be more emotional about this whole project and has tried to shout me down  on  reddit several times.

Personally, I think Bitcoin should be left alone to do its thing. It's too early to be monkeying with the code especially by a for profit company despite its members. But i could be wrong too. What they're proposing introduces complexity on a major scale and the effects  on mining is unclear and have the potential to disrupt Bitcoin. Despite what they've said, I doubt any of them have significant amounts invested in Bitcoin. Nullc has been surprisingly skeptical of bitcoin and we know Back has publicly admitted he missed it. The others i really wouldn't know. The point is, why let a for profit bunch of guys make changes to the code?

[cypherdoc]

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.

[hdbuck]

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.

This is exactly how its all going to unfold imho. Bitcoin is perfect.

[tabnloz]

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.

+1

Lets really plant the flag with Bitcoin first.

[sgbett]

all this monkeying with bitcoin makes me think of the unix koan...

http://catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.html

Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer, who was very proud of his mastery of C, said: “How can this be? C is the language in which the very kernel of Unix is implemented!”

Master Foo replied: “That is so. Nevertheless, there is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer grew distressed. “But through the C language we experience the enlightenment of the Patriarch Ritchie! We become as one with the operating system and the machine, reaping matchless performance!”

Master Foo replied: “All that you say is true. But there is still more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer scoffed at Master Foo and rose to depart. But Master Foo nodded to his student Nubi, who wrote a line of shell script on a nearby whiteboard, and said: “Master programmer, consider this pipeline. Implemented in pure C, would it not span ten thousand lines?”

The programmer muttered through his beard, contemplating what Nubi had written. Finally he agreed that it was so.

“And how many hours would you require to implement and debug that C program?” asked Nubi.

“Many,” admitted the visiting programmer. “But only a fool would spend the time to do that when so many more worthy tasks await him.”

“And who better understands the Unix-nature?” Master Foo asked. “Is it he who writes the ten thousand lines, or he who, perceiving the emptiness of the task, gains merit by not coding?”

Upon hearing this, the programmer was enlightened.

[sickpig]

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.

this is bold, pun intended

[cypherdoc]

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.

this is bold, pun intended

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. 

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. 

Almost sounds like your new Fed.

[devphp]

Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact that if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.

[cypherdoc]

Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact they if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.

I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?

Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.

[justusranvier]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k070h/enabling_blockchain_innovations_with_pegged/clhak9c

[devphp]

I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?

Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.

I just feel bad to see you carry this burden of bias and visit you once in a while to offer friendly advice. Hope you don't mind too much

[sickpig]

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.

this is bold, pun intended

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.  

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.  

Almost sounds like your new Fed.

I've no strong opinion about SCs.

I only gave a cursory glance to the white-paper and far as I can see to use Bitcoin as a parent
chain they "only" need to extend script adding a new opcode to recognise and validate the special
SPV proof they use to implement two-way peg mechanism.

I dunno if the SCs will be successful, but even if implemented nobody will force someone to use
it as long as I'm not missing something obvious.

Having said that you've to fight for what you think are right with all the tools at your disposal.

edit: fix typos

[HeliKopterBen]

Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol.  Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain.  The main chain will not be directly affected? 

Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.

[justusranvier]

Speaking of potential conflicts of interests:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/524949510347165696