Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 250. (Read 2032248 times)

I really think Bitcoin should stick to the business of money not the business of business. Blockstream is turning Bitcoin into a vehicle for speculation via SC's.

Its sad to see iCELatte and marcus et al cheering the above sidecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin. It just shows how much misunderstanding there is about Bitcoin as Money which is its original goal.

Request for comments

http://voxelsoft.com/dev/sumcoin.pdf

Request for comments

http://voxelsoft.com/dev/sumcoin.pdf

I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

with Coinkite and GreenAddress opposing the idea, an industry consensus remains out of reach.

In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

There is one fly in the ointment of curing the altcoin disease with pegged side coins.

Users will use a side chain for features they like, but there is 0 direct incentive for them to use a side chain to get a higher ROI on their investment.

Thus those who want to maximize ROI of some new feature such as for example on chain anonymity (off chain anonymity is untenable), will prefer to buy the altcoin version of the feature assuming that altcoin has a superior adoption curve to Bitcoin (remember smaller things grow faster on percentage basis).

And especially if that altcoin has an ecosystem that refuses to accept BTC directly because it is recognized that Bitcoin is a NWO paradigm wherein the future is Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Facebook, etc will move their zombie masses onto a pegged side chain they control with a centralized ledger, with full compliance government KYC required on all transactions. The masses don't care. They already completed the KYC requirement when they joined those sites.

It will come down to a war over anonymity. Bitcoin gets the non-anonymous world. Another altcoin will vie for the anonymous world if it is done correctly. The key will be driving anonymous usage and thus adoption.

One could argue that an anonymous side chain would suffice for users of anonymity, but this depends on the usage of anonymity. If all you are doing is storing value, then you plan to cash out via BTC, then that isn't going to drive much adoption as evident for Moanero.

But if you've got an ecosystem for anonymity that has investors and operators who refuse to accept BTC then such an ecosystem can outpace Bitcoin's percentage growth and thus ROI for investors.

Why would investors and operators of an anonymity ecosystem refuse to accept BTC? Because they'd be shooting their own foot in terms of their investment in the altcoin with a higher growth rate. They'd be siphoning off their own network effects and diluting them into the larger monolith of BTC chains. It is a simple economic calculation. One can assume that anonymous operators will be intelligent, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in anonymity.

Anonymous cash has been the preferred form of money for the last centuries. It is only with the advent of Bitcoin in the last ~7 years that has opened the possibility of a traceable digital token for some delusional "one-world-one-block-chain" bitcoiners think its a silver bullet for every problem in the world, mainly against the system and its power-grabbing freaks they say to fight against.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/tech-behind-bitcoin-stop-next-snowden/

Few people argue that federated methods are much more than a kludge, but as Maxwell points out in the recent announcement vid it is not clear that Bitcoin's native method of consensus, ideologically pure as it is, is devoid of fault or failure modes.  I've long argued that a federated scheme or similar would be a good auxiliary fall-back (mostly to discourage superior resource attacks from even being attempted.)  For this reason it hardly breaks my heart that necessity forces development of federated schemes which, temporary or not, deserve some degree of love.

Properly implemented federated methods absolutely ARE fundamentally different than many of todays crop of off-chain solutions.  With great effort a decent federated system might be able to inconvenience me and/or steal a tiny fraction of people's money in the micro-seconds before they were found out, but that is a completely different thing than, say, Coinbase who could freeze (and spend) all of the BTC I have in my account and everyone else's account as well.

But MPEX has never been hacked and famously clowned the SEC functionary who bothered them.  Those aren't easily duplicated results.

there are those of us who can do anything MPEX can do.

maybe more. 

Because I have no intention whatsoever of putting anything into any sidechain that I cannot afford to walk away from with a chuckle.

I expect to seen numerous sidechains sponsored by all kinds of entities for all kinds of purposes.  I'm very much looking forward to being able to distribute my eggs and to uses the various sidechains to achieve various goals.

All sidechains have one thing they need:  a rock solid Bitcoin since it is their backing and the basis for their value.  I expect the majority of sidechains to be legitimate and to participate in keeping Bitcoin strong and trusted.

I also expect that a wide variety of entities are going to find operating and managing their own monetary systems (their own sidechains) to provide a lot of rewards of different types and to pass some of this value on to their userbase.  Those who are positioned to make use of such a capability are also going to be among the most influential in guiding policy.  They are going to recognize the value of an independent and trusted Bitcoin as the ingredient that makes their sidechain work feasible and employ this influence in political spheres as necessary.  These are my hopes and predictions (which, admittedly, drift off the topic at hand.)

...
So why the fuck wouldn't you be concerned about a 50% attack on minority pegged side chains which offer sanctuary from the majority KYC expropriation chain?
...

It's awakening Socialism (built on and inextricably linked to cronyism and totalitarianism) that bothers me in that respect.  That's one of the big reasons that Bitcoin has captured and held my interest, and is probably the biggest reason I dislike XT so vehemently and am so excited about sidechains.

I didn't know that.  Thanks for sharing your expertise in numerology.  edit - now, how about that code?