Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1343. (Read 2032266 times)

The main reason to start one's own blockchain would be to exercise control (in the ways you mention.)  But the main thing that will build user faith in a blockchain is that nobody can exercise control.  It brings a smile to my face to think about the aggravation this corundum might cause to control freaks.

I project that Bitcoin will enjoy a lead as long as nobody can gain control.  And again, keeping it tight and accessible to a large number of potential operators is one of the reasons why I am so fixated on the block size issue.

Again also I had not understood Bitcoin sufficiently to recognize this small block size 'shortcoming' (or more accurately, how difficult it would be to 'rectify' it) and thus Bitcoin did not strike me as a suitable solution to act as a nearly perpetual backing store until fairly recently.

They could even go so far as to duplicate bitcoin exactly if the concept is popular enough to threaten them.  There is no reason they would have to just roll over and pay up for bitcoins when they can clone it and make their clone legal tender.

might as well just stick with the current fiat system then.  why bother with a chain?

problem with either system the gov't enforces, ppl don't like it and will look to alternatives.

Ideally, yes, but I don't see any properties of chains that require this.  If the governments are able to force it on people with legal tender laws, people may not support it, but they will use it.

but who's going to support their chain?  the reason ppl are buying into Bitcoin is b/c it has the right mix of principles that the average person can relate to and is happy with.

can you imagine what type of principles governing their chain that the gov't would come up with?  probably something like a Ripple where the originators get to keep 20% of the original coin, lol.  what a farce.  that's why i'm not a fan of Ripple and would never support it.  chains have to support the majority of participants, not just the interests of a few.

Why can't they just start their own blockchain?  I agree that the bitcoin model of clearing transactions is superior to the existing banking system, but I don't see why they couldn't start their own coin so they can get more of the initial mining proceeds and not transfer away as much wealth.

personally, i think it would less disruptive to the current monetary system if we could preserve the fiat overlay.  from day 1, i've always thought that Bitcoin could be used as world reserve standard; a gold standard if you will.  it would be a throwback to the old system we had prior to 1971 but digital.  it could ideally take the place that gold once held and perform a nightly digital balance of payment system between countries.  it would be fast, quick, and highly efficient and would prevent countries from issuing too much fiat or debt.

in that sense, Bitcoin would not have to change it's block size or increase it's complexity as it would be used mainly for very large transactions according to the above model.  yes, each Bitcoin would be worth an exorbitant amount as a result but hey, you have to think big and this would be the cost that the fiat money pushers would have to pay to preserve their corrupt system.  we can either take it from them forcefully or they can opt to work with a disruptive new technological system.  this concept is not unheard of as many gold bugs have recommended exactly this but using gold.  

it would be an enormous transfer of wealth to Bitcoin holders.  but again, those of us who were early adopters and contributed time, money, effort, talent, intellect, and hardware to growing this system deserve to reap the benefits.

My general feeling is that complexity, and especially dynamic feedback constructs, scare the shit out of me.  What we have now in Bitcoin works(*) and is good enough to build isolated systems off of.  Doing so will foster competition and evolution and will serve the purpose of providing individuals with solutions which will best fit their needs.  Some of the solutions will be scams and people will get burnt which is a shame, but one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs as they say.  Again, a reliable backing such as Bitcoin for independent efforts is a really valuable thing in and of itself.

In a nutshell I am of the mindset that it is better to quit while we are ahead.  I believe that we've yet to face the biggest challenges which will occur if/when the system starts to threaten other mainstream solutions and we are inching closer to doing just that.  Not even 'inching' any more in fact.

(*) Actually we don't know exactly how well it works until we run into the block size limit, and probably some other things as well.  I believe that in Bitcoin's simplified protocol form of today there is a good chance that it will prove robust to technical exploits.  Further developments of more complex constructs will make it exponentially more likely that Bitcoin could suffer a protocol related failure.

lol
That's probably not the thread for it but I basically see the future of Bitcoin neither in mining supernodes (which would kinda centralize Bitcoin) and also not in some kind of probabilistic transaction verification (i.e. not every node has to receive/verify all transactions, as long as you can make guarantees about "enough" nodes having verified each subset). These would be two alternative solutions to the blockchain scalability problem. I believe we'll have payment services that can be completely untrusted but act as a brokers between their users. Every user of such a service would have a certain amount "locked in" for say a month. Locked in means that they agreed (without any risk) on a pair of transactions which cancel each other out unless they get replaced before the month is over. By sending the service a replacement version of the reverse transaction that does not pay the user back the full amount you can effectively pay something to the service in a secure and instant fashion without having to use the blockchain. You can also use this mechanism to settle bills with other users of the same payment service in a similar way and everybody can do a million micro-transactions without ever needing to do more than two transactions per month in the blockchain (the rest ist P2P, out of band).
Another intriguing idea is the ultimate blockchain compression which would also solve the blockchain scalability problem.

I apologize if I misunderstood you or came across as harsh, I just happen to see Bitcoin's main problems not on the technical level. I don't pretend to know the best solution to each and every shortcoming of the current implementation but I have yet to hear about a single one that's not being actively thought about and where I can't see at least a few convincing proposals to remedy the problem.

Every time gold has been dragged along for a prolonged period, the selling exhausts itself in a spike just like we're seeing - this will be the third failure.


Maguire - Stunning 225 Tons of Physical Gold Bought By CBs

Whistleblower - Gold & Silver Smash Orchestrated By The BIS

'Huge GLD Metal Reduction' Scary Buying Op?

Of course the protocol is versatile.  That's why it is implemented with scripting.  There's a reason why transaction replacement was turned off you know.  Complexity adds risk.

If you want to elaborate on your theories about how transaction replacement will act as a cure-all which facilitates the dreams of everyone's skittles, SD bet, and goat cheese sale the world over, I'd listen.

Else I'm happy just to correct the mis-conception that I see a 'show stopper' in a modest block-size limiting the potential of the Bitcoin solution.  It's just the opposite in fact...I suspect that it will be the main thing which could save it.

Maybe not the best, but here's a thread discussing it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/explain-lock-time-replacing-transactions-23501
Basically it is the possibility to replace a transaction with a newer version within a certain predetermined time-window.
The particular use case I was referring to is a variant of example 7 on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts.

Transaction replacement? Have a pointer to where this is explained?

Ripple to the rescue!

This is absolutely no problem. Once transaction replacement gets enabled again, we can do most transactions outside the blockchain without any security loss and with the added benefit of instant settlement and much higher anonymity.

There are other solutions to this "problem" as well; the Bitcoin protocol is much more versatile as the way we are using it today might imply. If you really think this is a show stopper then I suggest you delve a bit deeper into the Bitcoin protocol.

Trouble in paradise, mi amigos.

The 1MB block size limit is completely incompatible with the dream of BTC being used by everyone for everything.  Many people seem glued to that fantasy and it colors their vision of the future of Bitcoin.

For my part I was aware of this issue but I was not technically clued in enough to realize the nature of the mechanics involved to change the blocksize.  Since I've always felt that the biggest chance of Bitcoin failure was indeed associated with increased growth, I am delighted by this hicup.  But that's just me.

I make this post because it illustrates the kinds of things that are likely to crop up with a new technology.  Especially one which the core developers continue to classify as 'experimental'.  This will almost certainly not be the last such event (unless it results in an implosion of Bitcoin generally which I currently doubt.)

To the extent that I am taking a victory lap, this is because it illustrates why I choose to continue to label my Bitcoin holding as a highly speculative adventure and balance my diversification accordingly.  PM's also are in a bit of a state of flux due to the increased influence of derivatives, but at the end of the day a chunk of physical gold is a very well understood thing.

 

the silverbox update (comparison from the beginning of this thread, March 13th, 2012, gold=1690, Bitcoin=5.4):

Bitcoin:  +476%

Gold:  -7%

silverbox in big trouble:

GPL:  -33% silverbox long

Diff:  +483% advantage Bitcoin and growing

Gold collapsing; Bitcoin UP.