Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 548. (Read 2032289 times)

no one babbles more and yet says so little than you.

Wrong person/thread/board?


I was more interested before your edit when the question was about Kimono Gravity Wells.  I've always been interested in what's under a kimono, and I could imagine gravity and a well being useful in revealing answers.

I've never been aware of any particular problems in bitcoin-land with difficulty adjustment.  Alts have been attacked and have had problems, and I suppose that Bitcoin could as well under some scenarios (such as state sponsored molestation of centralized minning effort.)  I've never even heard of the other coins you mention.  My interest in alts is nearly nill.

In retrospect I think Bitcoin would have been much better off with quasi-random and periodically switching proof of work algorithms themselves.  More significantly, I believe that the various kinds of rewards granted for supporting the system should be apportioned based on value added by diversity which would make the solution that much harder to attack.  I started describing it on the paracoin deal, but haven't touched it or even looked at it for years.

Fact is though that my thoughts on the matter which I believe would have made a better currency would never have been practical in the beginning, and would never be practical to adopt in Bitcoin.  So they are a pipe-dream.

I did envision sidechains shortly after I read the whitepaper as a means of scaling, but never did and do not now have the technical understanding or ability to know how to implement the two-way-peg and I'm not really sure that this rather obvious interface ever occurred to me though it should have.  I gave up on Bitcoin as a viable base for a while during the satoshi-dice spam thinking that it was already mortally damaged with cruft.  I've changed my mind on that and believe that if the Blockstream guys can get sidechains implemented, and if there is no more unnecessary bloat, Bitcoin is still workable and the best bet as top-dog, but a reserve-currency/exchange-currency differentiation needs to be recognized and embraced.  Also, the code needs to just cease and lock with very little more work in order to preserve the confidence that it has.  Vastly more development is needed, but it should occur at a different level.

Sorry to not really answer your question which was, I guess, sort of directed my way.

I am curious what are your thoughts as to Kimoto Gravity Well currently being talked up a bit by Pavel Chorbadzhiyski:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1207-more-adaptive-way-of-adjusting-the-difficulty-is-needed/

Seen in Donationcoin, Darkcoin, and Blackcoin earlier in 2013 and 2014 (not sure which implemented it first) in 2013 and 2014, there are some discussions that it could be used adaptively for bitcoin.

Anyway, let me know, there has also of course been _something related to it_ on the bitcoin-development discussion also, but maybe not exactly this, but I do not know to what extent, curious as to how you might consider that kimoto gravity well bit could be evaluated, or if it should be, in bitcoin context.

'and', eh?  Words mean things:

If sidechains were forced by design to merge mine with the mainchain then: 1) each sidechain is protected by their own hashing independently and 2) the mainchain would be protected by it's own hashing plus the sum of hashing on every sidechain. I don't know how you implement that, but it seems reasonable.

Nevertheless, if the technology to automatically create a twp that is decentralized is possible, then this fact is an incentive to do so. The threat of manipulation will heavier against the scBTC because they will not have the PoW costs factored in (and merge mining a BTC clone would be so inflated, the miners would be accused of premining). So what you would be left with is nested scBTC₁, scBTC₂, scBTC₃ that would make them all merely altcoins.

However, I think the side chain technology is a great idea IF it can be done, but not for it's intended purpose. It would decentralize EXCHANGES so we would never again see another gox/stamp catastrophe. Instead of centralized markets manipulating prices, we would see big players manipulating OTC trades on Open Bazaar leaving centralized exchanges no volume. Finally, we would see slow incremental price discoveries between competing free market cryptocurrencies where we can prove once and for all that PoW is the strongest valuation method.

The two way peg makes a sidecoin the same thing as a bitcoin.

I've got some green papers with portraits of various dead president imprinted on them in my wallet.  Some are labeled 1, some 5, some 10, some 20, etc.  Is there a thriving market for ones that say 5 and a giant spread?  No.  The reason is because they all have the same two-way peg.  This even though there is a latency if I, for some reason, wish I had 5s instead of 10s.  I am confident that I can exchange one for the other.

Note that one dollar bills my have the unique ability to be useful in a particular vending machine while it does not accept $10 bills (your 'value add'.)  This still does NOT create some sort of a thriving market.  Occasionally a bum may situate himself next to such a machine in hopes that someone will come alone with only a 10-spot and will accept 9 ones because he is so thirsty.  It's such a rarity that I'm not sure I've ever seen it.

A two-way peg creates an equivalence and kills 99.9% (give or take) of a 'market'.

Dow futures down -115

you're simply an imbecile and an idiot.  scBTC will be traded on exchanges in fiat terms, you can bet your ass on that.  they're virtual and all it will take for an exchange to do so would be to list them.  as such, with the minimum 2day 2wp delay and illiquidity they will suffer while being on the SC, you will see spreads that can't be immediately arbed away.  just like we see btwn our current exchanges that don't even have these restrictions.  to that extent, you think we see manipulation now?  just wait til we see SC's:

http://konradsgraf.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf

same as with NMC, If a main-chain has 90 petahash, then 2 sidechains could have 90 petahash each, (or 3 or all 5000 could have 90Ph each) in reality not all miners are going to Merge Mine everything. the problem is you can earn Bitcoin by merge-mining a sidechain (ie mining a different blockchain) this changes the incentives allowing shades of gray in the incentive system. you could attach the Bitcoin network with your mining power while actually mining bitcoin* (*or something that is equivalent to bitcoin on the protocol level) this is new, the ignorant love the idea.

to the contrariety, I'm no day trader, but I use exchanges on many continents, I'll agree there are lots of risk and i also agree it's almost all fiat side given i maintain control of my keys up until the last minute, the point is sidechanes do nothing to improve that fiat in the banking system or held in reserve by an exchange. so if as you put it nearly 100% of the liquidity problem is fiat, (I'll add that's where most of the risk is too) sidechains do little to improve the fiat problem, and can actually cause lag on the liquidity of bitcoin, and with wild arbitrage one could get trapped during an attack, say something like the Silk Road sidechain coin receives intermittent attacks from miners controlled by bankers in the US, same shenanigans will happen between states with legalized sanctions.

i don't buy that bold above, there will be all types of sidechanes, they will have value and they will be traded, the idea is they are backed by Bitcoin with added value. 

Umm...I guess you have not used exchanges very much.  The difficulty with liquidity is nearly 100% on the fiat side and nearly 0% on the bitcoin side.  Until the fuckers steal one or both, that is.

Saying exchanges are 'backed' by anything is kind of a weird and meaningless thing to assert.  In fact the blockchain is out of the picture completely within a trading engine and back office.  Fiat the same.  Only on the interfaces do either one come into play.

There would be very little reason to try to use a sidecoin as some sort of a traded commodity because of the peg-and-backing nature of the solution.  If a guy wants to try to play off some peg exercise latency or whatever, it's a free world, but it would be tiny corner case for trogs to toss dimes on the street corner, and it would only be mildly interesting if Bitcoin experiences wild volatility.  One of the things that sidechains are likely to do would be to induce some buffering and stability into the ecosystem and dampen that out.  God knows that would be helpful.

How does it work with merge-mining? If a main-chain has 90 petahash, then 2 sidechains are started, both merge-mined with the MC, do they all get 90PH security or 30PH each?

eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then.

I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable.

Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.

This is a minor thing, but I think CHF is the one that kept its price. It was all the others that lost 30% to it

(Also thanks for the charts cypher, the pictures say it far better)

You missing the point the Bitcoin on those two exchanges are all backed by the one blockchain. The asset is Bitcoin and the spread is significant. Bitcoin is liquid in that you don't have to wait days before you can arb. Just wait untill the market gets panicky and that 2 day confirm is elongated by hostile miners.

Sidechains are pegged you fucking imbecile.  Ignoring minor and optional implementation details, there is and can be no 'spread'.

You simply have no coherent structural overview of...well...anything that I can see and very little ability to formulate or even learn one.  You managed to at least imagine that grok a couple of things and try to map them on to every new thing you see.  No wonder you lost 75% of your money last year...unless you are telling people to do one thing (dump everything and run to Bitcoin) and doing another which is possible.

Sidechains are not some 10,000th get-rich-quick platform for you to try to trade straight across for USD.  Use native Bitcoin for that.