Pages:

Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 194. (Read 2032248 times)

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 24, 2015, 12:10:34 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 11:57:56 PM

Quote from: necrita on June 23, 2015, 11:12:56 PM

I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

It looks like we probably won't even get a chance to play. The bloatchain fork looks like it will be stillborn at best. They'll probably give it up soon.

Even if not, in the best of circumstances playing these games would have been iffy since all Bitcoin-based crypto-currencies and probably all crypto-currencies generally would suffer a black eye that would take all of them down significantly for a good period of time. It still might be possible to play various differentials but it would be risky and a lot of work.

The good news is that as sidechains start to blossom it will click in even the most dense of minds (i.e., cypherdoc's) that hodling BTC is effectively a simultaneous bet on the success of any sidechain no matter what niche it fills. Further, since sidechains themselves will sprout like weeds to fill any empty space they will be very robust against attack. These two things in and of themselves could have a fairly dramatic increase in interest and in price for native BTC.

it's going to be fun watching you crawl.

you're reading this totally wrong as usual.

Specifically he must think the pegged side chains are going to be failure prone and or easy to attack forcing people to stay away from them.

He must think Gavinmike have cornered the world's developer talent pool.

Does he have any clue how many developers do not work on or with cryptocurrency related projects? The sky is wide open for providing an ecosystem for them and competing away from the paralysis of Bitcoin Core.

mmmaybe

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: sidhujag on June 24, 2015, 12:14:39 AM

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

No threesome...? Tongue

Or a whole Bitcointalk orgie haha.

Has gold collapsed? Didn't know that, but BTC has gone up - a tiny bit. I still expect a whole different price level for BTC.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Fun watching u two dance.. Get a room already! :p

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 11:57:56 PM

Quote from: necrita on June 23, 2015, 11:12:56 PM

I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

it's going to be fun watching you crawl.

you're reading this totally wrong as usual.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: necrita on June 23, 2015, 11:12:56 PM

I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

necrita

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

I concur with tvbcof that there may be an opportunity during the hard fork for people to speculate and make a fortune.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: generalizethis on June 23, 2015, 09:30:09 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Hard money is a delusion.

What you really want is soft money that is decentralized and thus remains permission-less (censorship-free).

I'd argue what you are talking about here is a need for cash, or least the symbol of cash. And decentralization alone isn't enough to create an ecash. It has to be fungible, untraceable and unlinkable. Bitcoin's only fungible as long as you can guarantee your wallet won't become blacklisted, and as the tracking tech gets more and more sophisticated, this becomes more and more of a crap-shoot.

If I'm a "cash only" mom and pop restaurant who relied on a loan from an underworld organization to secure my business and need to pay restitution to secure my business and myself, am I going to risk using a currency that can be used to reveal all my tax revenue (credit) or (cash) one that lets me keep a profit over what I pay to my Bosses--the Mafia, the Yakuza, my kid's College Loan Syndicate?

You have to remember that most small business owners aren't technologically sophisticated and cash fills a very pertinent need in their lives. They aren't going to get a degree in sidechains or mixers or tumblers in order to perform their daily business--especially when those things still have a risk of tainting their accounts when the best of practices are followed.

The $ symbol exist and a lot of people want a digital equivalent, and BTC won't fill that demand until it is in the core. Right now BTC symbolizes Behind Bars or worse....

I am saying that for as long as loaning money and charging it to the sovereign debt-fiat backstop (i.e. the Logic of Collective Action) is the easier way for the masses to get "free money", then all attempts at non-free money will be subsumed by that aforementioned paradigm which inherently concentrates power.

For example, the 50% attack on PoW.

So that is why if you are going to succeed, then your perpetual debasement must be high enough to compete, then you need a way to give this away (distribute it) to the masses that can't be gamed such that it really is taken by the wealthy.

I solved this design problem finally!

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 23, 2015, 11:43:38 AM

judge for yourself. don't bother to tell me your conclusion b/c i already know what it will be:

https://twitter.com/adam3us

Adam has said they are in private discussions, which is what I urged them to do.

He retweeted these Wladmir tweets which are clearly show Wladmir gets it:

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613212008020844544

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613218317436887040

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613214989386678272

https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/613209976857829376

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 06:10:55 PM

Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?

Why do they have to sit back and watch? Can they not lobby those same miners, services, and merchants. Besides, the miners are mostly in control anyway. That's why gavin was so quick to accept the 8mb deal offered by the Chinese miners. He knows who ultimately enforces the code. The blockstream guys don't seam to understand that.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: lissandra on June 23, 2015, 07:59:51 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 07:52:37 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on June 23, 2015, 03:12:35 AM

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/no-money-exists-without-the-majority-226033

Well that only make sense right.

cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value.

Or some use case that cause a minority to demand it.

So they need to argue some features their hard limit fork will have that drive a use case. If store-of-value is the use case, they have to explain how their coins are better than gold. If their system has no anonymity then it is surely toast. Also how does their minority system resist 50% attack? Whack-A-Mole isn't a viable retort. They will never get the necessary changes to the protocol without SCs.

lissandra

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 07:52:37 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on June 23, 2015, 03:12:35 AM

Well that only make sense right.

cause what value is it if no one holds it, so yeah majority of the people need to hold it for any point of value.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:53:14 PM

If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."

They can't. I already told you that you wouldn't have enough hashrate unless you were a member of the cartel monopoly that is able to charge the cost of mining to the entire population via the capture of the sovereign bond-fiat connection.

What do you think KYC and 9/11 is all about?

You are socially myopic.

Edit: don't forget a monopoly can also raise transaction fees but withhold transactions for the minority miners. I (AnonyMint) described this attack in 2013 (Transactions Withholding Attack).

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 07:38:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:30:19 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.

I said I didn't expect there to ever be only 10 miners! I was pointing out, though, that we probably don't need as many nodes/miners as many people think we need. I then gave the very extreme example of 10 miners, spread out in different legal jurisdictions and run by people with different ideologies, and stated that such a network could still be "decentralized."

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:30:19 PM

The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.

Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.

Fine. Maybe they earn a profit or perks some other way and not directly by reducing their hashrate. It doesn't matter. The point is they're getting above-market-value for the work they're doing. If the network is free to join, then others who are not in the cartel will want to join in order to "eat their lunch."

Again, I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Erdogan on June 23, 2015, 03:12:35 AM

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:30:19 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:30:19 PM

The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.

Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 23, 2015, 07:21:16 PM

Financial disclaimers:

Hearn: self employed, Lighthouse open source project
Gavin: research MIT institutional salary
cypherdoc: coins
Maxwell, Back, Wiullie, Friendenbach, Corallo, Togami, Timon: Blockstream salaries, stock options, $21M of investor money

no matter how you cut it, the first 3 don't have traditional financial conflicts as defined in the "real" world.

Seems to me that Andresen and Hearn were two of the most active people in the now defunct Bitcoin Foundation that took hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of dollars out of people's pockets before the organization ended up broke and at the bottom of a smoking crater. I don't especially believe that this was a purposeful scam but I don't rule it out. One way or another it is kind of a blight.

There is nothing mysterious about a group of the most highly regarded and active developers in the ecosystem joining forces to work on a promising long-term solution to a problem with Bitcoin that everyone of them could probably see as the read the whitepaper for the first time.

Basically your 'conflict of interest' dog just doesn't hunt. That is reflected in your poll which is looking more flaccid by the day as people wise up. You folks need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy. Good luck with that...sidechains are getting closer day by day. tic-toc-tic-toc

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 23, 2015, 06:54:54 PM

I dont see it like that, I see Gmaxwell plowing ahead with his SideChains with full intent to implement the change to Bitcoin regardless of introducing new protocol intensives to take transactions off chain and the resulting economic consequence, this very action is a hostile takeover by Blockstream.

that said, it's always been that no one can force users to use a modified version of Bitcoin if development becomes centralized, saying "it'll never happen it's oven-source, we'll just fork the code". well its now centralized, Gmaxwell has been very vocal in promoting the fact that Gavin has no voice in the development of Bitcoin and is in the minority, and is quick to say he is not a Lead Developer, while technical true, he has taken on a self proclaimed role of Lead Scientist, in my view a more general and holistic vantage point.

there is lots of misinformation out there, and I don't see the masses getting involved in this debate, just looking at the pols people keep talking about, there are at most a few 100 or so voters, while Coinbase boast over 3M individual wallets that's a lot of early adopters invested in Bitcoin - ( i imagine that is 1 or 2 wallets per user) and we are not seeing them push for the changes.

at the end of the day Bitcoin incentives are driven by the economic majority, not a centralized core group, the economic majority will promote the incentive sachems that are the most beneficial to the largest audience to maximize there return. even miners shouldn't be have a voice like they do in this debate.

What you don't see that is in a consensus network where the transaction is the full node (i.e. the majority are the miners), then all the issues (including scaling) fall away.

And the only way to get there, is with a pegged side chain.

If what I stated was already published and proven, then you who are resisting SCs are the obstacles to progress.

This is why you don't understand me. Because you can't (yet) see what I see because it hasn't been described publicly (yet).

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail. For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete. However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized. The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit. But by doing so, they would invite competition from new members that aren't in the cartel (b/c suddenly it's profitable for new miners to join).

TLDR: I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:13:13 PM

How many nodes and miners do you think we need to be decentralized and why?

What does the word "decentralized" mean to you?

How would you measure the network's degree of decentralization?

Good questions.

It is not the number, but the quality of the network that being a full node can be ephemeral with the resources of a home computer and a home internet connection.

The reason is due to the nature of political power and society.

So thus I've also defined the metric.

My stance is counter to that which Satoshi predicted. And true Bitcoin Core is not designed to achieve my metric, unless you limit transactions by block size.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002