Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 215. (Read 2032248 times)

How unsurprising to see you so upset about a method of creating an actual market for transaction processing.  What will the welfare bums do if without commies like you to make sure they have low-cost or free access under a highly subsidized exchange currency to buy their energy drinks (converted from fiat that came out of my pocket complements of the State's own transfer of wealth schemes.)


As soon as enough people can be squeezed, fungibility can be attacked by tainting.  This would be trivial to do through the mainstream legal system entirely independent of the protocol, code, infrastructure operators, etc.  The only necessary ingredient is a mass of sheep using the system so that a reasonable segment of the user-base is responsive to differential value attacks.  Building this userbase is where you and cypherdoc come in handy.

Your solution for the core value foundation is not even built on quicksand.  It's built on a completely imaginary cloud.  The ONLY thing holding the disaster back at this moment is that the attackers are smart enough not to jump to soon and are giving you some time to do your work.

I consider the entire scheme unstable and unsound, and quite plausibly will never even be implemented (in other than federated form, at which point it instead becomes uninteresting).

Spin offs are not an all-or-nothing choice. You can simply do nothing and perpetually retain the full value of your original holdings. In the case where a spin off actually goes somewhere (retains non-trivial value for some non-trvial period of time), for new holdings/transactions you can do the same by acquiring/selling a bundle consisting of equal (or proportional in general) amounts of each coin (or wallets and tools can do this automatically as long as the outcome remains unclear).

At the leading edge of the block size ruckus, someone on this thread (although I don't remember who it was), reinvented the same concept starting with the idea of a chain fork. The idea being to improve the tools so that chain forks can occur sanely and the contentious political debates such as the block size can be avoided and left to the market instead.

Of course, a fair criticism of this is the requirement to develop and deploy better tools for users to transact using multiple chains. However, sidechains require the same sort of development and deployment.

EDIT: I suppose one way SPV sidechains could be implemented would be with a non-consensus chain fork i.e. spin-off. So there is that.

The SatoshiDice stress tess was a lot better than this plan.

At least the capacity problems they caused were from actual customers receving a service for which they were willing to pay rather than admitted spam.

Peter Todd's promotion of replace-by-fee scorched-earth is an attempt to keep the 1MB by the "back door", an attempt to realize the "Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions" dream. The effect of this change is to eliminate small purchases e.g. for cups of coffee, which require a workable zero-conf environment. Buying a car where the parties can wait for block confirmations would still be fine. He says that "zero-conf never worked" yet BitPay's business model repeatedly proves this false, every hour of every day.

I summarize my feelings here with:
Bitcoin as digital gold only for high-value transactions is a castle built upon quicksand. Bitcoin as digital gold for all transactions, where fiat is normally used, is a castle built upon solid rock.

Edit: this is interesting wrt tx vols:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ag3jr/number_of_bitcoin_transactions_follows_cubic_trend/

This should be interesting to watch,

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3agk61/ultimate_bitcoin_stress_test_monday_june_22nd/

Oh so very NWO-ish (your local laws will be marked valid or invalid by the world governing authority because you must register them in a public block chain where they can be marked for everyone to follow). And you applaud it.  

But Blockstream's two-way pegged side chains don't runaway from your BTC value. Thus they are best, because they are not all-or-nothing choices, you can go back and forth, and your BTC value is protected.

Disagree. If nodes are following a policy of first seen, then the necessary attribute is an emergent property of network propagation.

If you are arguing that mining clients won't follow the sane rule of first seen, then you are arguing against the Bitcoin model of mutual incentive to hold the entire economic concept together.


Whereas afaics (?), Todd's proposal doesn't help the recipient who already delivered the goods (the spender can burn up the recipient's payment out-of-spite just to destroy Bitcoin), which was the entire point of 0-confirmations in the first place.

Which is a good investment, investing with bitcoin or gold, what is your reason?

there are many good reasons to think nodes will go up as userbase increases.  none of which you understand no doubt.

Don't get smug. Your tweets, like your posts, have nothing of exceptional. Do you realize how schizophrenic you sound here:



Who told you poor folks that increasing block size will magically increase the userbase? It will do exactly the opposite to Bitcoin, almost no one will be able to run nodes themselves. Derpyt Dorpity.

anyway here's where I end with one of my favorite saying around these places: talking about bitcoin, even in group, do not make you part of bitcoin.

Yes, chain fork = (Peter R's) spin off, though the latter carries a connotation of being done in a somewhat less chaotic fashion. As I said before, spin offs make a lot more sense than side chains as a way to (potentially) upgrade bitcoin. Even Adam's one-way pegs are better than side chains, but spin offs are better than one way pegs.

Runaway sidechain never goin back,
Wrong way on a one way track

Yep, it's like an altcoin with a catapult start at the expense of bitcoin. Let the fookers do their own work, starting an alt.

As NL once said, never let your competition into the engine room of your wheel house. Or some shit like that.

That's why I prefaced the first sentence with "the way Bitcoin was designed" and the last sentence with "if the entire network applies this policy homogeneously."

And it still works if the policy is not perfectly homogeneous--just not as well since it increases the probability with which an attacker can double spend.    

Comparing a successful fork to a runaway sidechain.

A chain fork, while painful, will succeed only if the fork is better than the original. A bitcoiner need only do nothing to join the fork.

A sidechain will either be less valuable and therefore be very small, or more valuable and therefore run away. A bitcoiner might be left behind, unless he converts to the sidechain in time.

I prefer a chain fork to a runaway sidechain.

Well what do ya know, Coinkite abandons 1MB.

This only works if mining is homogeneous throughout the network, which is very much not how Bitcoin exists today. Otherwise it is up to the policies of a few individual (large) miners how likely a transaction is to get mined, not an emergent property of network propagation.

The motivation behind replace-by-fee is not to just go and break things, as detractors argue. It is to make instant payments safer by removing the incentive to double spend. The reason being that if you can double spend by increasing the fee, the recipient can too. The result is a bidding war where the entire amount gets burned in fees, and you gain nothing, removing the incentive to double spend in the first place.

However, this too only works if mining is diffuse (essentially homogenous) because otherwise you can conspire with a miner to refund part of the fee back to you under the table.

So rbf is largely pointless, and at this point indeed is an instance of the ongoing philosophical debate over whether Bitcoin should be a real time ecommerce payment system or a batch settlement system.

Matonis 'came around' several years ago, and likely induced various other power-players to do the same.  It was one of the things that kept me interested in and hopeful for Bitcoin.  I doubt that the guy will suffer a regression...unless some sort of flaw can be exploited...