Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 279.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 03:05:54 AM

Quote from: STT on June 04, 2015, 08:22:07 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 04, 2015, 04:32:52 PM

this lady is highly unlikely to be making a mistake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ6WR2R1MnM&feature=youtu.be

Will be amazing if she is right, maybe she just hopes she is as it definitely makes a good speech. To say with that certainty that blockchain transactions will be part of all public financing and as ground breaking as the internet is quite a statement if we consider just how much trade is done by the markets every day.

Blythe worked for JP Morgan and the banksters. I'm sure she wishes it would be so, since they plan to track and control us with public ledgers which are only decentralized in name but actually monopolized.

That's why we need SC's once we are dependent on "public ledgers which are only decentralized in name but actually monopolized" (I.e. something not Bitcoin that has grater value) we will want to use them.

Creating value on a SC and not using the 2wP but using the other ledger is a way to create value off Bitcoin that is not represented in the blockchain it has the same effect as monetary inflation and is plausibly denied as the unit is pegged.

The problem here is because of the peg you risk nothing if you fail to create value - you 2wP back. TPTB can keep trying until they succeed, you can't defend against a odds like that.

Wandererfromthenorth

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Natalia_AnatolioPAMM

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 10:48:07 AM

sometimes, you just have to focus on the obvious:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246607

good point

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

dEBRUYNE

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1141

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

i've said this for years. so all you boomer-fucks (my colleagues like tvbcof) who think you're going to impose your will, retirement benefits, and debts onto the young of this country got a nasty surprise awaiting you:

http://www.coindesk.com/nyse-chairman-millennials-trust-bitcoin-more-than-fiat/

your only salvation will be to buy Bitcoin to, at minimum, act as a hedge against fiat implosion. but if you actually want to make money thru the transition, you will buy moar.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2015, 11:12:14 AM

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 10:50:10 AM

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin.

I'm not sure if it's true that Bitcoin can be as private as Monero or not, but I hope to find out.

One of the things we want to do with the Open Bitcoin Privacy Project ratings is generalize the measurement criteria until it's possible to make cross-currency privacy comparisons. That's tentatively planned for 2016.

At some point it should be possible to start to meaningfully compare Monero wallets with various Bitcoin wallets.

Note that just proving the cryptographic properties of ring signatures isn't enough, because some other part of the system might leak information or be susceptible to privacy-reducing user error. You have to evaluate the entire stack.

As I already said the supernetwork WILL make Bitcoin more private then monero. I urge you to take a look at teleport/telepathy features.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 11:00:04 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 11:32:17 PM

Quote from: majamalu on June 04, 2015, 11:13:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 10:18:40 PM

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (Visible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

majamalu's point is that for money, there can only be one dominate ledger. He is saying that for Monero to succeed, Monero has to become that ledger over Bitcoin, and there will not be 2 separate ledgers side by side.

Commerce requires a single ledger in order for two entities to interact, and this is why we have always ended up with a single global unit of money that everyone uses. That unit was gold where national currencies were valued by how much gold backed their issuance. This switched over night at Brenton woods when the world agreed to switch the backing unit from Gold to FRNs, and today currencies now require FRNs in the form of treasuries to back them.

If crypto currencies succeed, there will be one successful one. That is why majamalu says Monero needs to be in competition with Bitcoin to succeed. It's either or, not side by side.

precisely. and this is why either Bitcoin's zeroes or Moons.

and the way the markets are aligning right now, and with stocks & bonds beginning to roll imo, the markets may be preparing for Bitcoin to ascend the throne, ie, Moon.

in my mind, Bitcoin is at red arrow. after 2.5 yrs of decline:

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 10:50:10 AM

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin.

I'm not sure if it's true that Bitcoin can be as private as Monero or not, but I hope to find out.

One of the things we want to do with the Open Bitcoin Privacy Project ratings is generalize the measurement criteria until it's possible to make cross-currency privacy comparisons. That's tentatively planned for 2016.

At some point it should be possible to start to meaningfully compare Monero wallets with various Bitcoin wallets.

Note that just proving the cryptographic properties of ring signatures isn't enough, because some other part of the system might leak information or be susceptible to privacy-reducing user error. You have to evaluate the entire stack.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 11:32:17 PM

Quote from: majamalu on June 04, 2015, 11:13:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 10:18:40 PM

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. Cool

If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.

It might survive as a sidechain though.

Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (Visible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.

Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.

Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.

If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.

majamalu's point is that for money, there can only be one dominate ledger. He is saying that for Monero to succeed, Monero has to become that ledger over Bitcoin, and there will not be 2 separate ledgers side by side.

Commerce requires a single ledger in order for two entities to interact, and this is why we have always ended up with a single global unit of money that everyone uses. That unit was gold where national currencies were valued by how much gold backed their issuance. This switched over night at Brenton woods when the world agreed to switch the backing unit from Gold to FRNs, and today currencies now require FRNs in the form of treasuries to back them.

If crypto currencies succeed, there will be one successful one. That is why majamalu says Monero needs to be in competition with Bitcoin to succeed. It's either or, not side by side.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: rocks on June 05, 2015, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 10:18:40 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 04, 2015, 10:54:36 AM

You missed the point. Monero's "innovation" was the decision to add a single mixing routing "at the protocol level" which is only one method to create agreement between entities on how to mix coins. Bitcoin users can make the exact same decisions among themselves, mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

The value add here is weak, it will not be enough to make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch.

XMR uses well-known, mathematically proven ring signatures and stealth addresses in an extremely clever scheme which provides emergent new functionality, much like Satoshi's ingenious arrangement of PoW, HashCash, etc.

Did you miss crypto gurus like gmaxwell and theymos stating it provides genuine innovation (no scare quotes needed)?

Did you miss the fact Monero's Cryptonote protocol is unique in providing near-ZKP levels of unlinkability and untracability? Try reading the whitepaper (it's not very long): https://www.cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

If you mix off-chain, you are merely obfuscating and therefore Doing It Wrong.

XMR isn't here to "make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch."

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. Cool

I read the whitepaper before. I never said it was not a clever scheme, it is.

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

So again, the differentiating factor for Monero is simply the decision to implement a single scheme at the protocol level, but there is no requirement to implement a scheme in that manner, there are other options to achieve the same thing in Bitcoin. No those options are not fully developed nor widespread today, but they will be.

In fact, implementing a single fixed scheme may turn out to be limiting over time

don't expect someone who has lost the faith like iCELatte, by shorting BTC and going long XMR, to understand that which makes his investment decisions lose money.

he doesn't understand why protocols like IPv4 and TCP/IP still form the basis of the internet despite better alternatives having been invented. it's called inertia and network effect. or as you say, alternatively building better systems or layers on top of those protocols instead which add flexibility. hell, i'm not even a tech guy like him and i understand these things.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 01:31:37 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 04, 2015, 02:35:07 PM

do you care to explain how it's centralized again.

if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.

can you ELI5.

Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).

That alone is already centralization.

And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?

I feel the force of the argument, but I think it only applies to the ledger-updating protocol, not the ledger itself. From an investment perspective, the ledger is what matters. The ledger is where the most economically important network effects are.

Even if TPTB can centralize and control the protocol, they can't stop the users of the ledger (BTC holders) from switching to a different ledger-updating protocol. Thus the store of value is maintained, and the network effect of what is now called "the Bitcoin ledger" is maintained. Now they could cut it off in its infancy, push another ledger to compete with it, etc., and that would be damaging, but you'd still have that core group of people who are aligned with the principles Bitcoin was intended to uphold, ready to carry on with that ledger.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 03:55:08 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 04, 2015, 11:45:11 PM

Now, if Monero or pretty much any total shitcoin was a sidechain and I could have the proper level of confidence that I could, autonomously, shift my holdings back to BTC, I'd be all over it. If XMR is as great for privacy as iCEBREAKER claims (again and again and again), fantastic! I'd happily use it whenever I have that need.

...
But I don't see why we need Blockstream to do that. Afaics, any altcoin could offer the feature where its coin supply is the number of BTC on specified reserve on the Bitcoin blockchain (using the methods devised by Blockstream).

Where I see something like Blockstream being of enduring value is that I'm not going to be checking every line of code of every (of the many) sidechains I want to peg. The stamp of approval from some organization I trust is what I would be using to make a judgement.

Of course in the early stages there is a lot of fairly intricate work to get the crypto and certain aspects of the security developed.

I focus on the makeup of the Blockstream group significantly for these reasons. Indeed, it is because sipa and Maxwell in particular are involved in Bitcoin core that I retain the position that I do. I would probably have sold a lot more (or tried to) at the $1000 mark if Gavin was the main guy actually doing things. Ironically it looks like Maxwell might have done me a dis-service by lending Bitcoin credibility at a time when I should have been bailing.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 10:18:40 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 04, 2015, 10:54:36 AM

You missed the point. Monero's "innovation" was the decision to add a single mixing routing "at the protocol level" which is only one method to create agreement between entities on how to mix coins. Bitcoin users can make the exact same decisions among themselves, mixing does not have to be specified at the protocol level.

The value add here is weak, it will not be enough to make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch.

XMR uses well-known, mathematically proven ring signatures and stealth addresses in an extremely clever scheme which provides emergent new functionality, much like Satoshi's ingenious arrangement of PoW, HashCash, etc.

Did you miss crypto gurus like gmaxwell and theymos stating it provides genuine innovation (no scare quotes needed)?

Did you miss the fact Monero's Cryptonote protocol is unique in providing near-ZKP levels of unlinkability and untracability? Try reading the whitepaper (it's not very long): https://www.cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

If you mix off-chain, you are merely obfuscating and therefore Doing It Wrong.

XMR isn't here to "make the global bitcoin ecosystem of users switch."

XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. Cool

I read the whitepaper before. I never said it was not a clever scheme, it is.

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

So again, the differentiating factor for Monero is simply the decision to implement a single scheme at the protocol level, but there is no requirement to implement a scheme in that manner, there are other options to achieve the same thing in Bitcoin. No those options are not fully developed nor widespread today, but they will be.

In fact, implementing a single fixed scheme may turn out to be limiting over time

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

sometimes, you just have to focus on the obvious:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246607

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 05, 2015, 01:15:28 AM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 01:41:01 PM

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 04, 2015, 02:05:55 PM

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

So no universal agreement on the state of the ledger? There must be some way of settling up over time. But I guess you just mean the protocol doesn't have to be shared, in some sense. This may be outside my technical knowledge. Not being a coder at all, I admit I haven't thought a great deal about how Bitcoin runs under the hood until recently. Your hints are getting somewhat tantalizing, but without seeing the whole thing we of course can't know if there's some obvious error if you're recreating Hashcash or Ripple/Stellar (can you? if it's that important you may as well open it to peer review; with a lot of it precoded you could still easily be first out of the gate).

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 05, 2015, 10:05:04 AM

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for. it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money. if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails. why? it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process. this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant. ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence. it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that. that is what i will support. innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.

Well good thing you won't need to worry about that because the supernetwork adds better-then-monero anonymity directly to the bitcoin chain itself!

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for. it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money. if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails. why? it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process. this is why i don't like SC's b/c it can force the same thing if a SC becomes dominant. ppl can't afford that and it destroys stability and thus confidence. it would appear as if crypto were a ponzi scheme, luring in ppl to one scam, only to take their money and create another.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that. that is what i will support. innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 279. (Read 2032286 times)