Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 661. (Read 2032265 times)

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 05:00:18 PM
i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:

 Cheesy

This is beyond stupid.

Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets.

You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value.

Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT !

 Cheesy

no, eventually we do want that.

but first, Bitcoin has to succeed as money.  it has to continue to grow using the features that we KNOW have brought us to where we are today:  the SOV and money function.  before any of those other things are possible, Bitcoin has to become a more widely accepted and used global digital currency that is seen to compete effectively with other fiat currency choices and w/o gvt support.  we're not there yet.  we are all still early adopters.  

Wall St and outsiders are making every argument they can about why BTC is too expensive and why it won't work or why it needs to be fixed.  they're all excuses cuz they don't want to buy @ $357.  well, that's too bad.  all we need to do is hodl and stay the course.  eventually, they will HAVE to buy in and take us to the Moon.  and then miners will thrive and maintain the security of the MC.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 04:53:29 PM
i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:

 Cheesy

This is beyond stupid.

Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets.

You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value.

Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT !

 Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 04:51:08 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.
 

No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet.

His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer.

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp.  the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function.    the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them?  these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.
 

No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet.

His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 04:37:33 PM


Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities.



b/c investors in the BTC unit only have to hodl to win big.  as a deflationary, fixed supply currency, inevitably all the printed fiat in the world today will flow to the most liquid, highly valued SOV, in the long run.  so in aggregate, all we have to do is hodl to go to the Moon.  (and not let anyone change the rules!)

very simple really.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 04:32:21 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place?  presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.

the answer you gave before is b/c "looky, everyone else is trying to develop these!"  that's a fallacious argument b/c it presumes they're correct in their quest that ppl want these things.

i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things.  that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY.  the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV.  little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite.  even Americans don't want these speculative assets:



so the reason these other Bitcoin 2.0 platforms are climbing all over themselves to develop these things is b/c they don't know what the hell they're doing and misunderstand Bitcoin and what it represents:  Sound Money. 
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
November 22, 2014, 04:27:59 PM
Those percentages are guesses right?

I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.

No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.

Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk.

Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality.

This is just not true.

That altcoin would have to start with a price of 0 and with a network size of 0. the Bitcoin network will spot any innovation that altcoin might bring and automatically incorporate it out of self protection being open source. Any investors that buy that altcoin will likely lose money just like we've seen with all altcoins today. The network effect of money should insure the fiat money flow will preferentially continue to be directed towards Bitcoin.

MySpace is a terrible example because those social media sites do not involve the network of money which Bitcoin, in its current form, it's set to disrupt everything fiat.

 We just need to keep our eye on the ball.

I can see Bitcoin having a much more difficult time incorporating changes from say a new alt in the future than the alt that creates it first and runs with it.

There is no guarantee that a large # of those using Bitcoin would update to incorporate such new changes/technology/ideas.

Even Gavin has stated previously that any changes to the core protocol of Bitcoin is something to be done slowy and very cautiously over time (meaning not an overnight update will patch bitcoin to be relevant.)

To me that is the reality of such future technological innovations in the crypto space.

But then again that is just an opinion based on what I know of Bitcoin and also what Gavin has stated in previous conferences.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 04:21:02 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.  

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 22, 2014, 04:16:44 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
November 22, 2014, 03:59:10 PM
You can end the currency quite nicely without ending the country.

As long as the Imperial Armies are standing and agree we can do pretty much what we want. Quantic weapons pose a problem that only true peace can resolve. to get true peace love must be at the center of it. Gold is against peace and love. It destroy the Earth. If you can't live in peace with the Earth that saw you born, what else could you expect, but what you seed is what you are going to ripe.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 03:40:38 PM
I know they're (federated)  possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.

They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.

Yes, federated models will probably be central to Blockstream business model.

SPVP will facilitate the construction of open-source, public good, platforms/sidechains that will likely be built in cooperation with the community and will allow anyone to leverage their utility and build applications on top of them.

Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a  classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. 

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 03:35:22 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

Arguments : missing
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 22, 2014, 03:31:13 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 03:29:30 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.  

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen.    lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin,  go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged.

You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem.

I know they're (federated)  possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.

They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 22, 2014, 03:27:02 PM
Quote from: cypherdoc. ink=topic=68655.msg9623629#msg9623629 date=1416681760

The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should  occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves  itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
 

Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors.

Let's validate one experiment at a time, the Bitcoin experiment has not concluded and the Bitcoin 2.0 ideas are not a threat.

I want the best idea to win not the one idea to merge into the other. I think you are wrong but that didn't belittle the 2.0 ideas we need both.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 22, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
since I'm on the Cash & Tango thang, i will say this:

If SC's could be theoretically confined to 2 utility chain,  say for fast tx and anon and Blockstream reorganized as a non profit, I could get behind this limited version of SC's.

 However, i suspect neither of those 2 propositions are possible, let alone both together.  .
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 22, 2014, 03:23:05 PM
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.  

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen.    lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin,  go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged.

You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem. SPVP provides a balance and a more decentralized alternative to the mechanism of proof verification.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
November 22, 2014, 03:18:55 PM
The root to sustainability is the stateless community, which is anarchy, autarchy and selfsufficiency beyond an economy. An economy has never ever been something different than a "state bastard" (Paul C. Martin). State, money and debt (= organised violence) is the root of the collectivist rise-and-fall-society (communism, feudalism, capitalism, idiotism).

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

In stateless community there is violence too.

Not before the invention of patriarchy - 10'000 years ago. Matrilineal anarchy has been destroyed and was followed by patriarchy (=organized violence):

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html
Jump to: