Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Krugman just validated all the pessimisms you've ever had over the last 5yrs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/

[cbeast]

Krugman just validated all the pessimisms you've ever had over the last 5yrs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/

Is there a transcript or synopsis? I really can't listen to economists.

[cypherdoc]

Krugman just validated all the pessimisms you've ever had over the last 5yrs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/

Is there a transcript or synopsis? I really can't listen to economists.

not that i'm aware of.

but he admits that our current system has favored the 0.1% elite with assets due to the political influence they wield and that politicians favor creditors over savers.  he validates Piketty's thesis.  he also believes we haven't recovered from 2008 and wealth disparity has increased but offers no solutions except more of the same.

[cypherdoc]

if the $DJI pauses today, which it looks like it well, you'd better look the hell out tomorrow.

[tvbcof]

Bitcoin Maximalism

I, for one, welcome our new ScamChain overlords.

Yes, to be sure many sidechains will be scams.  And highly regarded and trustworthy 'overlords' lending credibility to the basic idea of sidechains will be very welcome to those intending to use the mechanism for scammery.

It needs to be made very clear to users that just because something leverages the sidechains principles (or claims to) this is no reason to drop due-diligence and common sense.  Use only sidechains which can be thoroughly analyzed and have a theoretical basis in the principle that the sidechains manager can at the very worst lose value...NOT take value.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin Maximalism

I, for one, welcome our new ScamChain overlords.

Yes, to be sure many sidechains will be scams.  And highly regarded and trustworthy 'overlords' lending credibility to the basic idea of sidechains will be very welcome to those intending to use the mechanism for scammery.

It needs to be made very clear to users that just because something leverages the sidechains principles (or claims to) this is no reason to drop due-diligence and common sense.  Use only sidechains which can be thoroughly analyzed and have a theoretical basis in the principle that the sidechains manager can at the very worst lose value...NOT take value.

If a SC is open source and the bridge is secure, then what's the problem?

[cypherdoc]

trendline well intact:

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin Maximalism

I, for one, welcome our new ScamChain overlords.

Yes, to be sure many sidechains will be scams.  And highly regarded and trustworthy 'overlords' lending credibility to the basic idea of sidechains will be very welcome to those intending to use the mechanism for scammery.

It needs to be made very clear to users that just because something leverages the sidechains principles (or claims to) this is no reason to drop due-diligence and common sense.  Use only sidechains which can be thoroughly analyzed and have a theoretical basis in the principle that the sidechains manager can at the very worst lose value...NOT take value.

you touched on something i'm very worried with SC's the other day:  a speculative attack.

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".  therefore a whale could pump large amts of BTC thru the peg driving up the #scBTC and eventually its price with a reasonable confidence that he won't be hurt as he could always reverse back into BTC. the problem is other BTC holders might be forced to follow for fear of the SC taking over as the mainchain and the merge mining % flipping. in other words, MM for Namecoin is about 70% that of Bitcoin currently.  assuming a SC is initially MM'd, say at 60%, if a superior SC can flip this around by making Bitcoin 60% MM'd with the SC becoming the main chain, those left behind in BTC will lose value or may lose everything.  the problem is that BTC holders may not be able to differentiate an unfolding superior SC from that of a Sidescam.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

[rocks]

Pigs are flying, Greenspan said Gold is a safe place to store wealth.

Former Fed Chief Greenspan Worried About Future of Monetary Policy
Fed Chief From 1987 to 2006 Says Fed’s Bond-Buying Program Fell Short of its Goals
http://online.wsj.com/articles/former-fed-chief-greenspan-worried-about-future-of-monetary-policy-1414597627
(Google the title to get a link outside the pay wall)

Mr. Greenspan said gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments.

[lebing]

Pigs are flying, Greenspan said Gold is a safe place to store wealth.

Former Fed Chief Greenspan Worried About Future of Monetary Policy
Fed Chief From 1987 to 2006 Says Fed’s Bond-Buying Program Fell Short of its Goals
http://online.wsj.com/articles/former-fed-chief-greenspan-worried-about-future-of-monetary-policy-1414597627
(Google the title to get a link outside the pay wall)

Mr. Greenspan said gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments.

wow.

[cypherdoc]

you touched on something i'm very worried with SC's the other day:  a speculative attack.

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".  therefore a whale could pump large amts of BTC thru the peg driving up the #scBTC and eventually its price with a reasonable confidence that he won't be hurt as he could always reverse back into BTC. the problem is other BTC holders might be forced to follow for fear of the SC taking over as the mainchain and the merge mining % flipping. in other words, MM for Namecoin is about 70% that of Bitcoin currently.  assuming a SC is initially MM'd, say at 60%, if a superior SC can flip this around by making Bitcoin 60% MM'd with the SC becoming the main chain, those left behind in BTC will lose value or may lose everything.  the problem is that BTC holders may not be able to differentiate an unfolding superior SC from that of a Sidescam.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

i also don't think this can be arbed away.  it's reasonable to think scBTC would start off lower than BTC from being new and less secured with MM.  if the whale can force this to flip with the price of scBTC rising faster than BTC at the very least this will cause volatility.  some BTC holders and especially the speculators may be convinced the SC has a chance to take over and will follow encouraged by the risk free put.  miners may then switch to the SC too and start MM BTC instead.  yes, arb in the middle of a big picture transition can keep prices relatively equal.  but if a true transition is really happening to the SC becoming dominant, the BTC price should start to drop below that of scBTC as realization sets in that BTC is going to lose and BTC itself becomes the 60% MM'd chain with the SC as the mainchain.

so in essence, last out the door will lose.

[sidhujag]

not looking good for btc charts... LTC doesn't want to hit target and is sending BTC lower... we might get a chance to buy some really cheap BTC.

[cypherdoc]

shucks, my laptop with my charting program went dead.

looks like the gold reversal DOWN is well underway.  from memory, both GDX and GDXJ, have broken below their consolidation points.  that's not good.  in retrospect, they were leading.

also, my prediction of a Dow Theory non-confirmation is looking good and is firmly on the table and in play as a major hint that we may be entering a period of severe volatility and perhaps recession as a bear cycle may be settling in.  we'll see how the next few days behave.

[smooth]

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".

I don't think it is risk free since a failure of the sidechain could prevent unlocking on the BTC side, or conceivably cause the locked BTC to run out.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

This seems very plausible to me.

[cypherdoc]

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".

I don't think it is risk free since a failure of the sidechain could prevent unlocking on the BTC side, or conceivably cause the locked BTC to run out.

i understand.  but a chance of a bug in a well designed open sourced SC is probably no more than a bug in Bitcoin itself.  especially if an attacker waits a good amount of time to prove stability of the SC before launching the speculative attack.   given those circumstances, the 2 way peg IS a risk free put.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

This seems very plausible to me.

a speculator loves to cause volatility and will love the risk free put nature of this situation.  he will take advantage of it at the expense of less sophisticated investors.

[Odalv]

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".

I don't think it is risk free since a failure of the sidechain could prevent unlocking on the BTC side, or conceivably cause the locked BTC to run out.

i understand.  but a chance of a bug in a well designed open sourced SC is probably no more than a bug in Bitcoin itself.  especially if an attacker waits a good amount of time to prove stability of the SC before launching the speculative attack.   given those circumstances, the 2 way peg IS a risk free put.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

This seems very plausible to me.

a speculator loves to cause volatility and will love the risk free put nature of this situation.  he will take advantage of it at the expense of less sophisticated investors.

- I cannot imagine how somebody can pump scBTC when exchanging them against BTC is 1:1 at the protocol level.
- I cannot imagine how keeping BTC in MixerBTC, HotWalletBTC or ExchangeBTC make them more valuable (if you do not use them for trading, fast-spending or mixing)

[cypherdoc]

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".

I don't think it is risk free since a failure of the sidechain could prevent unlocking on the BTC side, or conceivably cause the locked BTC to run out.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

This seems very plausible to me.

remember that my base case for consideration is a simple Bitcoin fork with no sidecoin with one sell-able "innovation" added in.  in this sense, an outright failure is not to be expected.

[cypherdoc]

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".

I don't think it is risk free since a failure of the sidechain could prevent unlocking on the BTC side, or conceivably cause the locked BTC to run out.

i understand.  but a chance of a bug in a well designed open sourced SC is probably no more than a bug in Bitcoin itself.  especially if an attacker waits a good amount of time to prove stability of the SC before launching the speculative attack.   given those circumstances, the 2 way peg IS a risk free put.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

This seems very plausible to me.

a speculator loves to cause volatility and will love the risk free put nature of this situation.  he will take advantage of it at the expense of less sophisticated investors.

- I cannot imagine how somebody can pump scBTC when exchanging them against BTC is 1:1 at the protocol level.

why not?  we're talking about a whale pumping in a "large" #BTC thru the peg for scBTC.  whether he is doing it b/c he truly believes the SC has merit or is doing it as a pump and dump, observers will never know.

- I cannot imagine how keeping BTC in MixerBTC, HotWalletBTC or ExchangeBTC make in more valuable (if you do not use them for trading, fast-spending or mixing)

take my base case scenario and add in perfect anonymity as the innovation.  if this SC actually works, the paper itself said that BTC holders could make a transition to the SC to take advantage of the innovation.

the question is, do we all want to be making transitions to a new chain everytime an innovation comes along?

[brg444]

you touched on something i'm very worried with SC's the other day:  a speculative attack.

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".  therefore a whale could pump large amts of BTC thru the peg driving up the #scBTC and eventually its price with a reasonable confidence that he won't be hurt as he could always reverse back into BTC. the problem is other BTC holders might be forced to follow for fear of the SC taking over as the mainchain and the merge mining % flipping. in other words, MM for Namecoin is about 70% that of Bitcoin currently.  assuming a SC is initially MM'd, say at 60%, if a superior SC can flip this around by making Bitcoin 60% MM'd with the SC becoming the main chain, those left behind in BTC will lose value or may lose everything.  the problem is that BTC holders may not be able to differentiate an unfolding superior SC from that of a Sidescam.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

i also don't think this can be arbed away.  it's reasonable to think scBTC would start off lower than BTC from being new and less secured with MM.  if the whale can force this to flip with the price of scBTC rising faster than BTC at the very least this will cause volatility.  some BTC holders and especially the speculators may be convinced the SC has a chance to take over and will follow encouraged by the risk free put.  miners may then switch to the SC too and start MM BTC instead.  yes, arb in the middle of a big picture transition can keep prices relatively equal.  but if a true transition is really happening to the SC becoming dominant, the BTC price should start to drop below that of scBTC as realization sets in that BTC is going to lose and BTC itself becomes the 60% MM'd chain with the SC as the mainchain.

so in essence, last out the door will lose.

Just a note about this scenario.

I don't believe miners switching over to the SC and MM BTC makes the SC the mainchain. Only a full exile of the nodes can do that.

[cypherdoc]

you touched on something i'm very worried with SC's the other day:  a speculative attack.

assuming a SC failure is a long tail unlikely event as from a bug, the 2 way peg and scBTC is acting like a "risk free put".  therefore a whale could pump large amts of BTC thru the peg driving up the #scBTC and eventually its price with a reasonable confidence that he won't be hurt as he could always reverse back into BTC. the problem is other BTC holders might be forced to follow for fear of the SC taking over as the mainchain and the merge mining % flipping. in other words, MM for Namecoin is about 70% that of Bitcoin currently.  assuming a SC is initially MM'd, say at 60%, if a superior SC can flip this around by making Bitcoin 60% MM'd with the SC becoming the main chain, those left behind in BTC will lose value or may lose everything.  the problem is that BTC holders may not be able to differentiate an unfolding superior SC from that of a Sidescam.

i see a very high likelihood of this attack that at the very least will cause volatility in the entire ecosystem. and that would be bad for the BTC and the scBTC price.

i also don't think this can be arbed away.  it's reasonable to think scBTC would start off lower than BTC from being new and less secured with MM.  if the whale can force this to flip with the price of scBTC rising faster than BTC at the very least this will cause volatility.  some BTC holders and especially the speculators may be convinced the SC has a chance to take over and will follow encouraged by the risk free put.  miners may then switch to the SC too and start MM BTC instead.  yes, arb in the middle of a big picture transition can keep prices relatively equal.  but if a true transition is really happening to the SC becoming dominant, the BTC price should start to drop below that of scBTC as realization sets in that BTC is going to lose and BTC itself becomes the 60% MM'd chain with the SC as the mainchain.

so in essence, last out the door will lose.

Just a note about this scenario.

I don't believe miners switching over to the SC and MM BTC makes the SC the mainchain. Only a full exile of the nodes can do that.

this is the follow on from me beating around the bush the other day, btw.

if BTC holders and miners can be seduced to switch to the SC, full nodes might be expected to as well.