Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 213. (Read 2032248 times)

Maybe kazukiPIMP?

I never said Monero has a future, though strictly speaking, to say something has no future you'd have to claim it will be dead by tomorrow, or next month, or next year. All of those seem reasonably unlikely in the case of Monero to me, and I'm just trying to be objective about it here, not an advocate. So I'm not really sure what having a future means in this context. I doubt Bitcoin or USD will last forever either.

As far as sidechains, I give cypherdoc credit for his intuition about them. Despite not really understanding the technology (nor claiming to), he's been more insightful about the concept at a high level than many people who should know better, including it's inventors. That is assuming we can take their statements of what they are trying to accomplish at face value though, which may not be true.

Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out.

Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong.

In general principle I could see something like that happening, but I doubt that it would be Monaro or anything like it which takes on the reserve role.

Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me.  That's just a gut sense.  More than that, though, the very things that people crow about (privacy, opacity, etc) work against a reserve currency or backing store.  To be effective in this regard a backing store needs to be as transparent as possible.  I'm much more comfortable knowing that some particular entity (even a total dick-head) controls exactly a certain part of the backing store than having to guess at it.  This is especially the case if I am confident that I can watch it move around.

The defense against attack by this loss of privacy that I would be comfortable with would be if the someone or some entity who controlled X percent of the backing store could just stand up and tell attackers, "ya, I own it.  Go fuck yourself." and I could verify that his position to say that was sound.  A example here would be MP's reaction to the U.S. SEC's harassment.

At the end of the day, lending support to a backed monetary system will require the backing store controller to put his Bitcoin (for instance) up for grabs by anyone who wants to take a position.  They could trade it off for 'things' and the only way for the controller not to lose it would be to buy it back.  Someone who controls a lot of the backing store could use this leverage to game the collection of systems.  Opacity and privacy here only makes this potential threat vastly worse.

While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it.

At least Monero is not a leech.

No

Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.

Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).

I guess he was the one

That's because they have been plenty busy trying to keep Bitcoin viable and valuable most likely.  I very much doubt that they have time for your silly games.  In fact I have reason to believe that some of them have not been paying much attention to your ilk and are somewhat mystified at your absurdity.

I, for one, am glad that with some exceptions the devs who are actually doing shit have not gotten their hands stuck in the cypherdoc tar-baby.  Bitcoin is much better off for it.

edit: link

You are conflating a physical peg with a peg enforced by market exchange dominance. The latter is destined to fail when the dominator exhausts resources. The former fails only if the physical peg fails, i.e. the side chain breaks the protocol rules of the peg.

If you can carry those BTC units on your coin's network orthogonally to your coin's units, then you get the benefits of leveraging Bitcoin's existing network efforts while ramping up your own coin.

Transition isn't instantaneous. Many may prefer to transfer BTC value and then later after convinced, they convert BTC to your coin.


Well long-term, it impossible to guarantee that the protocol of the pegged side chain will continue to warrant that it is not creating new BTC units, thus long-term there is no way the peg will be respected on the side of the side chain. The Bitcoin Core block chain wouldn't care because money supply there is not subject to change by what a side coin does. (ditto vice versa)

So yes the BTC value in the pegged side chain can not be warranted long-term, but that is not the targeted purpose. It is a short-term (couple of years or so) test of flow from Core into a new network. If the flow is sufficient, then it succeeds and eventually diverges from Bitcoin Core long-term. Short-term is enough to meet investor expectations.

I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?



But if that semi-centralized federalism is a pathway to a superior decentralized network, then that centralization gets discarded...

Careful the myopia...

Is it you who created that candle ?

Since I got interested, Gavin's focus seemed to be on making the GUI more pretty and such rather than to put much focus on things like pruning (which was one of the big selling points to me in the whitepaper and still has not happened.)  Another in the list of useless and counterproductive development pushes was to get SSL with it's reliance on certificate authorities put in.  That one opened us up to the heartbleed bug.

There did seem to be a change when Gavin visited the Council of Foriegn Relations and refused the most basic of transparency requests on the part of the user-base.  It seems to correspond roughly with the point when Hearn's whole arm worked it's way from Gavin's ass all the way up to his jaw.  That's what it seems to me at any rate.  It also seems to correspond whit the point when he stopped doing almost any coding at all.

'devs gotta dev' because Bitcoin is important, under stress, and has a variety of core defects and has experienced  a stream of quasi-attacks.  Most of the devs have spent their efforts on these issues as far as I'm concerned and have done quite a nice job.  To my way of thinking Gavin has never been hugely helpful but until relatively recently he has at least not been obstructionist.

what's ridiculous is your claim in bold. 

if it was so controversial, why hasn't your point come up before?  i've never heard any of the other core devs spouting your allegations, even now.

Given the keys by Satoshi? Even you are blindly repeating that? Satoshi only gave him the alert keys, the metaphorical keys you speak of do not exist. Gavin took advantage of Satoshi's disappearance by repeating that same story over and over again of Satoshi putting his email on the website like it means he is Satoshi's heir. There is no such position in bitcoin anyways.

What you portray as 'going off to tinker' and 'obsessing' is creating solutions and being cautious about modifying what is like changing the function of a car engine while the car is moving. This hyperbole betrays the weakness of your position, only the weak side resorts to such in a discussion. The network has been DoSed, but not significantly and in any capacity to impact more than most users. Deprecating/choking bitcoin core? How? By moving wealth (that probably wasn't already there due to an inadequacy) from something bitcoin can't do well or can't do at all into a sidechain? The only choking is of possible future financial wealth, which shows stake in the game.

you miss the whole pt of what i said. 

Gavin is ALSO trying to automate out HIMSELF.

if you've observed Gavin carefully ever since he was given the keys by Satoshi, he has always been much more optimistic and hands off with Bitcoin than all the other core devs who just obsess all day long about what's wrong with Bitcoin and what they should be doing about it.  Gavin, being the understanding leader that he is, simply let those guys go off and tinker at the edges for the longest time.  now, when the block size limit continues to be hit, he HAS to step up and take charge to prevent repeated DoS'ing of the network.  in the meantime, what was entirely unpredictable was a faction of core dev going off and creating their own private for profit company which actually depends on deprecating/choking Bitcoin Core. 

his vision with XT, which i entirely agree with, is to get it to a point where it upgrades itself over time to keep up with internet capacity.  he doesn't want this shitfest debate coming up again.  that's not good news for devs who gotta dev.

this is a worthy goal.

Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy.

heads up.

the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN.  that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top.  phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.

what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS. 

esp a few core devs who think they know better.

and that, imo, is a worthy goal.

see that big green candle?