Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 683. (Read 2032265 times)

if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp.

How so? It seems to me they are exactly what we need to realise it.

You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.

Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.

+1

no, it's you who don't understand.  just a superficial scan of the blog makes it clear that the author is talking about the Bitcoin blockchain as his Universal Exchange.  somehow, he seems to relegate the BTC units to a minor category, if i'm not mistaken, which would be wrong.  it's the BTC unit plus the blockchain, or the inextricable link btwn the 2 that i'm trying to ram into your peabrain, that is important.  the 2 combined are what constitute Bitcoin as Sound Money.  splitting these 2 via your spvp gimmick will destroy Bitcoin as Money.

that is the functionality we need to be promoting, not all this SC bullshit which will relegate us to the "Bitcoin Trading Platform Game".  we want all outsiders to have to buy in to BTC with cold hard cash which will drive us to the Moon.

Don't fear the inflatacoins. With silver and gold, there were equivalence in a silver money and a paper money at some point. As paper proliferated, fiat laws tried to implement the "a mark is a mark is a mark" meme. You can say people didn't care enough, but mostly they accepted the paper because it was better money. With bitcoin that will not work. It is not possible to construct a better money, because bitcoin can assume any quality from an altcoin that is in fact better. If necessary. In some far future. Nothing currently available can compete.

I just let by balder go,  

most of it is hot air, we should be looking at real GDP

Yes, we want a good medium of exchange.  The more universal the better.
We also want a good store of value, and unit of account.
Basic stuff.
Most of cypherdocs issues with SC are in the SoV area.

they are the same proposition.

if you read the original link, you would be able to infer that sound money, Bitcoin as you know it is the only way to achieve Universal Exchange.
The author has painted a picture where your bitcoins are invisible, the idea is more like an Austrian barter Zeitgeist Universal exchange run on sound money.

and yes SC are a threat to that vision.

it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.

Total misunderstanding. If you implement the universal exchange, you still need money to hold value between transactions. You could hold something else, but in that case, what you and others would prefer to hold, would become the money. The stuff that has the best money qualities. Include bitcoin, which is the best money, in the bucket of goods traded, and you are good to go.

BTW, this is the DAILY TX volume.

we are the minority. I just what you to consider the consequences when the majority bolt on SC professionalCOIN. NewLiberty took it up a notch https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9587151 I was a little limited in my thinking, considering we'd always have peace.

I like the Bitcoin that can Stop war, the idea it can be used to fund it should be flushed out a little not dismissed.

Actually its quite fun to do i think if you are a paid professional digital influence you should learn about the Six Thinking Hats check out the link.  

we are doing the black hat stage at the moment, but your defending yellow hat ideas, your approach is very destructive.

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

D&T is struggling with banks with his exchange type company, not surprising that he is pretty busy.

On the MBS proposal topic.

The solutions I suggest for the scalability issue based on the Max_blocksize is more a hybrid of the two.

There are at least two problems with Gavin's proposal that are resolved very simply with mine.
1) What if the open-loop solution is too big and knocks lots of nodes off the network increasing centralization.
2) How do we know when the next time we need some central money planning decision authority to suggest a new target MAX_BLOCKSIZE?

Simply stated: We use a factor of the recent blocksize with adjustment restrictions to prevent burst abuse conditions (TX spam, etc) -the closed loop, and use an upper limit of the exponential solution -the open loop.
When they converge, then we know that it is time for whomever is the new consensus builder to propose something different (or to recognize that there is some other problem needing attention).

What this does (among other things) is it avoids the potential condition where we have solved scalability in other ways (such as side chains or something else) and typical block sizes are still in the 1-2MB range (decades from now) and the network of that time is more or less built around this expectation, lots of hobbyists, and we have very good resilience.
Then suddenly we get a bunch of 1GB blocks (because it is under the limit of the protocol) but folks aren't expecting it and we lose 7/8 of the nodes then running to this bandwidth attack.
Our children will look back at us and think we were idiots for not preventing this sort of thing when we had the chance.

Worse case scenario, it is only as bad as Gavin's proposal.
Best case scenario, we have a more effective backstop to prevent protocol abuse and encourage node running.

Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating.

May the best coin win!

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money


http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

By "made the law" it means it isn't voluntary.  Usually this works through both moral suasion, and force.  
No one in your country will accept your bitcoin or else they may be called a traitor.
People that you know have lost family members, your friends or your children are going off to fight to defend your home.
The authorities have let it be known that this is the only way you and your way of life will survive, and if you lose the battle you will be killed or enslaved because you have the wrong type hair/eyes/language whatever.

This sort of circumstance is the one regions typically find themselves in when there is a central bank scheme brewing up (or when one becomes abolished).
By not trading in your bitcoin for gov.inflation.coin you won't be able to spend them, and if your government wins the war, you have to hope then never discover your deceit for the rest of your days.  If they lose, and you survive, it is a different set of challenges.

It is easy to say what one might or might not do when not in the circumstance, but this method has been very successful throughout history on both wars of aggression and of defense for establishing central banks.

Paper money was innovated by the Huns... and so they conquered Asia.

amen

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.