Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

...
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency.  Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down.

Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have  a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB.  Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.

When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me.  He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then.  Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution.  I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.

As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them.  You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is running point and is at a crossroads. Miners are getting selfish and destroying goodwill. Litecoin is following in Bitcoin's footsteps and will be ready to take its place if it fails. If Bitcoin is unwilling to take risks in order to maintain its lead, then maybe its time to step back and let litecoin take all the risks. Perhaps developers like Blockstream would be welcome by the scrypt community. Maybe the next big ASIC developer will not be so hasty reluctant to pay a little back to the community that made their industry possible.

[cypherdoc]

...
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency.  Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down.

as usual, you're distorting things.  i think Gavin has been very responsible as lead dev and quite frankly is the only one i trust anymore except for Wladimir and still maybe Pieter.

Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have  a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB.  Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.

wtf are you blabbing about now?  you are such a complainer.  Hearn man crush?  give me an example of what you're talking about.  more delusion from you.

When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me.  He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then.  Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution.  I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.

w/o Gavin, Bitcoin would not have gotten as far as it has.  he has the utmost respect if you read the general community response to him (quiet JR) and he's about the only one who can keep his mouth shut.  

As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them.  You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.

no one's spinning anything.  i'm telling it like i see it.

[iCEBREAKER]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

I agree with CD, and your appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy in any case.

GM has already demonstrated his capacity for terrible judgement and hypocrisy, in the Custom Hardware sub where he repeatedly violated/refused to enforce the rules HE WROTE and stupidly advised people to eschew full ASIC refunds because he clung so strongly to his sense of entitlement to an unethical windfall.  He is a hyper-specialized codemonkey who has no business being responsible for anything outside of programming.

Regardless, I don't think we can win the political battle to fork BitCoin into SideCoin due to the incentives created by the conflicts of interest.  My only comfort is seeing the Maximalists turning BTC into the ultimate altcoin, driven by their fundamentalist zeal for jihad against all other cyptos (which they consider blasphemous abominations unto Holy Satoshi).

[cypherdoc]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it.

I agree with CD, and your appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy in any case.

GM has already demonstrated his capacity for terrible judgement and hypocrisy, in the Custom Hardware sub where he repeatedly violated/refused to enforce the rules HE WROTE and stupidly advised people to eschew full ASIC refunds because he clung so strongly to his sense of entitlement to an unethical windfall.  He is a hyper-specialized codemonkey who has no business being responsible for anything outside of programming.

Regardless, I don't think we can win the political battle to fork BitCoin into SideCoin due to the incentives created by the conflicts of interest.  My only comfort is seeing the Maximalists turning BTC into the ultimate altcoin, driven by their fundamentalist zeal for jihad against all other cyptos (which they consider blasphemous abominations unto Holy Satoshi).

well, since they've set up a for-profit company to take advantage of their source code change, it could simply just be a matter of money.

i agree with what you say about GM though.

[cypherdoc]

interesting:

https://twitter.com/spair/status/528363817797812224

[Wekkel]

With official taper here and gold price tanking, its time to revisit this old gem:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-22/what-shadow-banking-can-tell-us-about-feds-exit-path-dead-end

[marcus_of_augustus]

Do any of you guys know of a worked out p2p marketplace with a democratic escrow system?

I've read some posts on reddit etc talking of how it might be done and I've seen some altcoin creators have it on their roadmap, but I'm not aware of anything real yet.

https://openbazaar.org/

https://bitsquare.io/

[cbeast]

followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position.

I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years?

Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all.

so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr.

not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust?

I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar.

numerous run ins with Gavin, famously BIP 16:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61705.30;wap2

Luke is actually not a core dev specifically b/c Gavin won't let him b/c of trust issues

Luke-Jr. attacks and kills Coiledcoin alt-currency using the Eligius mining pool:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/

Luke Jr. is that twat that spammed the blockchain with Catholic prayers no?

He did many many things and keeps confirming he's an asshole but the actual trigger to lose trust? Using his pool to kill and alt coin years ago without permission of the miners. If anyone in the world ever liked abusing power it's this guy right here.

LukeJr is bitcoin's official stress tester.

[NewLiberty]

...
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency.  Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down.

Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have  a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB.  Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.

When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me.  He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then.  Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution.  I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.

As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them.  You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.

The point is less that "it happens all the time", and more that SC are potentially competition for Bitcoin as much as they are collaboration with Bitcoin.
How many of your competition work in the core engine of your business, and how comfortable are you with that notion?

[cypherdoc]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

[Odalv]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

[cypherdoc]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower.  yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.

[Kupsi]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower.  yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.

Why would anyone transfer coins to SC if the price is lower?

[molecular]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

[inca]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower.  yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.

But the 'two way peg' in the example you describe won't happen in reality cypherdoc. Why the price arb at all? Anyone buying SCBTC for less than BTC on an open exchange can simply send them back to the main chain and sell bitcoin and profit. Then buy more SCBTC, transfer them back to the main chain and sell them. Repeat ad infinitum. If the market prices SCBTC lower than btc then all SCBTC not in use for an actual purpose will migrate back to the main chain. It doesn't follow there will be a price change in bitcoin as a result, in my mind at least.

OK i can see that selling bitcoin could depress the price. But that process would result in the coins migrating back to the main chain so I don't think it makes much sense as an argument against sidechains.

[cypherdoc]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

[Odalv]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower.  yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.

Bitstamp is sidechain controlled by central server. Is bitcoin from bitstamp worth only $100 ?

[cypherdoc]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100. $325

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

FTFY

it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower.  yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.

Bitstamp is sidechain controlled by central server. Is bitcoin from bitstamp worth only $100 ?

i can see your analogy but i don't think it's appropriate.  it's an exchange where all Bitcoiners look to as a reference point for price discovery as well as getting in and out of BTC.  that is not the situation in a leeching SC.

[inca]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.