Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 590. (Read 2032291 times)

That reminds me to clarify.  I consider Cypherdoc to be the proverbial and archetypal 'frenemy'.  We've got a long history and the last thing I remember agreeing on was that BTC was worth taking a chance on @$2-ish.  Probably why we are both still around.

The thing that is so endearing about Cypherdoc is that he is near completely a troll and and ass-clown, but he seems to totally miss it and seems to earnestly believe the opposite.

Anyway, this thread was made for trolling.  Look at the title and most of Cypherdoc's input for Christsake!  I personally don't consider trolling to be a bad thing in many circumstances.  I developed my theories of trolling back in the Usenet days after noticing that in order to be effective a troll had to have a subtle element of underlying truth.  To that extent a troll post has value.  Generally they also must be amusing...at least to the group of readers who share one's sense of humor.  Here again is a source of value.

I do not think there should be protocol limit on the size of a block.

I think that miners should pay the relay network to propagate their blocks and users should pay to receive them.

If the cost of relaying a block was discovered in a competitive open market for relaying, then miners wouldn't be able to spam the system with huge blocks without incurring out-of-pocket costs. It would also mean that as the transaction volume goes up, so does revenue for relay nodes which they can use to pay their increased costs.

Once the relay network was operating as a market instead of price-fixed-at-zero clusterfuck we wouldn't have to these continual pointless debates. Resource allocation would just work without needing to be constantly adjusted by central planners.

let's just ignore all the other names I mentioned and pick on the most convenient.

LOL!  An entirely predictable tragicomedy.

Someone should collect articles such as this to help anyone contemplating joining a bunch of Libertarians on some desert wasteland, foreign shore, island, set of welded together scrap barges or ship, etc.  I would suggest as a title for the collection: 'Atlas Bugged.'

Adam,

i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way.  yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work. don't expect that to continue forever.  instead, perhaps you might want to answer some of the real questions i've posed to you but you have failed to answer:






btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up.  i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:


now that's trolling!

Haha, I thought you'd call me on my non-answer to your question.


Gavin's proposal basically removes the production quota you don't like, just not all at once, and in a way that we hope will allow an user with a typical home internet connection to continue to operate a full node.  I don't see how implementing Gavin's scalability proposal hinders price discovery for blockchain space / P2P bandwidth to any significant degree (and you must agree that it would be an improvement when compared to the current 1 MB cap).

someone's liquidating assets.  this is gonna cause real problems for debt based speculators.:



nice intraday reversal with continuation of the short term Dow Theory non-confirmation:



growth? what growth?



continuing flight to black hole shit.  that's not good:



fear is still upon us:

There are very important differances. Within Nxt everything happens on the blockchain. It costs 1 nxt to place order, cancel order etc, and you have to wait for a block to confirm. It also only support Nxt/asset pairs. With InstantDex/SuperNet, orders can be placed or cancelled for free - instantly via direct p2p comms. It also supports dynamic order books of any trading pair. Trade settlement then occurs ON blockchain. Atomic cross chain trades will also be supported.
This will destroy centralized exchanges and the need to entrust them with your money. I believe it will one day form a massive pool of liquidity and knock down the current barriers we have with each exchange being it's own separate walled garden.

Again, Nxt is a platform meant to be built on and extended, it is not a "coin". People have begun to realize what kind of innovative power that gives them. SuperNet is only the first "killer app" to come.

You're right, having a decentralised exchange within a decentralised exchange is a structurally suspect concept.

Jeff Berwick, really?

All you need to know about that guy, you can find here:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-on-galts-gulch-chile.html

He reminds me of Zuckerberg, the way he shovels obvious bullshit, thinking he's so smart and his audience is so stupid, that they won't spot the glaring inconsistencies.

SuperNet is a layer on TOP of nxt. It uses many of Nxt's features such as secure messaging, asset settlement and many other pieces. It also uses features from every other coin and can apply these features to every coin, including bitcoin. InstantDex will support dynamic coin2coin/coin2asset orderbooks which means nxt assets can actually be priced and purchased directly with bitcoin instead of going through the Nxt token. This can also apply to FreeMarket so that goods in the store can be purchased directly with Bitcoin.

The article describes something more like SuperNet running as a layer under Nxt ... which is bizarre when you consider that a big selling point of Nxt is a decentralised exchange platform. How long before an internet of internets containing internets of blockchains (with sidechains?  )

Appears Andreas agrees:

http://youtu.be/jw28y81s7Wo?t=16m30s

Looks like Jeff Berwick is interested as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JT7P9P7kig

Adam B Lavine and Stephanie Murphy are also very interested. Along with Kristov Atlas, Jason King, Roger Ver, Anthony DiLoria, Elizabeth Ploshay, Shawn @ team storj... and MANY others. 319 contributers and counting.

The SuperNet project is not some dinky toy. It will be a serious force in 2015, I've been saying this for months and people are beginning to wake up. Nxt up 20% over the past 2 days. SuperNet has held very strong over this bear market, that says something. When all the supernet start paying out dividends for it's massively growing list of included projects/services, watch out!

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113223/the-nxt-client-just-gave-me-a-braingasm

More importantly... Nxt is a platform, not an altcoin. A massive amount of innovative projects are being built on top, SuperNet being the biggest one that you should not be ignoring: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113229/supernet-super-competition-for-fiat

There's also FreeMarket, Lyth, InstantDex, TradeBots, financial privacy and anon tech that destroys coinjoin/mix, FinHive's blockchain AI tech(http://finhive.com/roadmap.html), distributed plugin system(verifiable untamporable web app plugins stored on the blockchain), distributed anon websites and comm(may offer safer access then Tor itself), encrypted messaging without needing an ip address, decentralized file storage via integration with storj, the multigateway, decentralized poker, p2p sprtsbetting/dice/casino, etc... I could go on and on.

Oh and many of these things will also be usable with Bitcoin!

Emphasis mine.
It doesn't offer a two-way peg, so what does the SC stand for?

By "that" you mean the GNC coin, or a way to protect BTC from having its network stolen via merged mining?

As fas as I can see, such a "bitcoin killer" coin would not need to invent anything, correct?

That'd be a great invention.

I mean your scenario is a little bit unrealistic but I think it would be secure.

Draft press release of NXT SC version ..... https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/launching-1-4/msg145133/#msg145133

Thanks for taking the time to answer my stupid questions.  If I can abuse once more of your patience, please consider this scenario:

  Someone, not connected to Blockstream or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin GreatNewCoin (GNC).

  GNC is basically a clone of bitcoin, with SHA PoW, block rewards etc.

  GNC has a few advantages over BTC, say 10x faster block rate; but is also endorsed by Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Justin Bieber, and the Dalai Lama.

  GNC can be merge-mined with BTC, and occasionally inserts hashes into the BTC blockchain to make itself "secured by the bitcoin blockchain". Still, GNC is not explicitly supported by the bitcoin protocol, and there is no expliciit "transfer" of BTC to it.

  Most bitcoin miners will merge-mine GNC too, since they may win the 50 GNC block reward as well as the 25 BTC reward, without extra work.  Thus GNC, from the start, has the same network hashpower as BTC.

  Various people set up exchanges between BTC, GNC, and national currencies.  People also trade GNC over-the-counter, person-to-person, etc.   BitPay adds GNC as a payment option for all their affiliated merchants.  These ventures do have no explicit support in the GNC (or BTC) protocol and network.

  GNC price rises from 0.10$ to 1$.  Some smart BTC holders sell their BTC for dollars or GNC.  Some dumb GNC holders sell their GNC for dollars of BTC.  The price of GNC keeps rising, while that of BTC starts to drop.

  One Monday at 06:30 am, the market suddenly gets the idea that GNC is going to supersede BTC.  BTC holders rush to sell BTC and buy GNC.  In a few hours, the price of GNC rallies to 1000$, while that of BTC crashes to near zero.

  At 11:30 am, the Winkles wake up to discover that their 200'000 BTC are now worth 2 kopeks and a Somalian shilling.

  Since the BTC rewards and fees are now worthless, most miners stop mining BTC and keep mining GNC only.  Only a few persist, for sentimental reasons. The BTC block rate drops to near zero for months, until the difficulty gets readjusted.

  Then someone, not connected to Blockstream, GNC, or any other bitcoin entity, creates a new altcoin SuperShibaCoin (SSC)....

Summary: doesn't merged mining provide a path for an altcoin to steal bitcoin's network power and market cap, with little investment,  even without any change to the BTC protocol and without any special mechanism to "transfer" BTC to it?

Could some sidechains innovation provide suitable incentives to miners that would prevent this risk?

Hey Zerg - no fair - too much signal density (signal/byte!) 

This is bitcointalk - where's the trolling, name-calling, ad-hominem or claim of bad faith bias?

cypherdoc - can you do us a favour and redress the karmic balance before the signal gets too high in here?  Gotta rev up the flame war, it was fun!

Adam