Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 663. (Read 2032265 times)

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

what's so frightening?  this is how we go to The Moon:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248419

Preserve Bitcoins Sound Money Function!!!

The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is.

i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC.  the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo.  who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS?  thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.

Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?

i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently.  that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere.  those being listed below.  they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's.  well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid.  see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:

0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money

it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it.  i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol.  never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain.  and understandably so.  by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money.  this is so obvious.  the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.

Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are:  the Money function.  that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks.  this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks.  the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts.  those all function reasonably well.  the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks.  w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard.  and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted.  and rightfully so.  THAT is where the money is.  the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown.  the gold market is huge as well.  if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon.  Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex.  it has evolved to that of a public good.  no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money.  let alone profit off it.  

leave the source code alone.

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.
 

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.

To do this Bitcoin has only 3 advantages in the scheme of things. Fixed supply, security, and popular support. By decreasing security, you'll destroy the other 2. MM'ing can't possibly be extended to more than maybe 2 SPVProof enabled SC's due to resource constraints. The others that Blockstream has a huge financial incentive to sell will be highly risky.

All this serves to degrade and dilute the money function which Satoshi envisioned and will take us right down into a simple trading platform that nobody will want. 

if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes.

Lets set aside whether "the ledger" can be coherently discussed as being on multiple block chains for now.  I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one.  We both know what the other means now, I think.

A single block chain is not always "congruent" with itself.  When that happens, we call it a reorganization, or at a smaller level, we get orphaned blocks.
When these reorganizations occur, what remains is the longest chain and a log entry, and life goes on.  Usually when it has happened it is just a few blocks.  On a faster chain it happens more frequently though.

One of the highly sought after SC is for faster transactions.  
Merge mined chains are more vulnerable than those that aren't.

The kept intact and secure part is going to need some work to manage what happens when there is a reorganization occurs that bridges outside the confirmation period.

The Blockstream whitepaper gives this period a day or two.  That may be sufficient to make it mathematically impractical (maybe even if it is merge mined), or it might not.  Or other folks might compete with Blockstream and offer SC with a shorter confirmation period.  There is a lot of flexibility here, a SC can be most anything.

These single-ledger sound-money links can break.  They may not do so anytime soon, but it is one of those risks we want to address.

I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one.  We both know what the other means now, I think.

 

How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented.

Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger.

Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on.

There is no we, just an insolent you.

 

How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented.

Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger.

Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on.

edit : maybe you want to adopt the more reasonable or rational stance related to the danger of changing mining incentives. that is at least a defendable opinion.

In stateless community there is violence too. The only difference is that you have to do justice yourself. I prefer the efficiency of a giant USMC. I think that people that don't support collectivization of defense have an agenda... that will ultimately result in them being some kind of afg bad warlords. I hope that you will have time to develop counter measure against the Imperial fleets once you start to commit violent act in a pacified territory belonging to the Empire... or else where... I wish you gl, you will need it . What's your opinions on Imperialism, and the emperorless Empire version, aka THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

like i said, just allow Bitcoin to function as Sound Money and we will win!  do not separate the unit from its BC!  think nom, nom, nom...

Bitcoin-transactions will most likely be VAT-exempt in The Netherlands (Dutch Source)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n2unb/bitcointransactions_will_most_likely_be_vatexempt/

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

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

LoL, please stop, same textbooks, same education, same cocktail, same goals, same ideologies: Inflation is good, because it motivates to work more, otherwise you would be lazy and would think to enjoy life. Exactly what a german dude planed. we never left war economies.

Did gold stop being "Sound Money" when promissory notes arose?