Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 712. (Read 2032266 times)

What are you talking about?   When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains


The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.

At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.

It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.

The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.

The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.



Please don't make me laugh...

Gold has been discussed to a point of conclusion.

The new convo is about the magnitude of increased technical/economic attack surface created by scamchains.

the answer is, there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin.

it's a nascent currency that is going up against the world's greatest powers in both the political and financial world and all we see is increasing adoption globally.  more and more exchanges are coming online along with payment processors.  we've had a record year in merchant adoption and tx volumes are growing and just hit an all time high.  VC capital investments are at record highs and you can feel the increasing momentum in the news if you care to follow closely:







hashrate has experienced record growth and is finally leveling off as it has reached a rate that has successfully secured our precious network.  NOW is the time for all the $ pouring into mining to be diverted into the price.  but SC's threaten to disrupt this delicate equilibrium:



the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:



and as far as volatility of the price goes, this is normal price action.  the fact that we are still way up here at $397 speaks volumes that Bitcoin is here to stay.  everything is going as planned and gold is suffering as i predicted and will soon be a feeder source for Bitcoin.  if we get a financial crisis that will help too.  all we have to do is not fuck it up. and that means having patience.  and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.  it will also send a bad message and establish a precedent for criticism from outsiders.  the business of Money cannot be conflicted if we want nations and all classes of ppl to buy in.

who cares about the 10 min block time?  really?  that's about what it takes for a decentralized network to synchronize worldwide.  the network needs that time to prevent attacks.  who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.  and if you really want you can mix your coins or do a Coinjoin.  no problem.  there are many issues that keep being debated but Bitcoin keeps grinding on.

many, many ppl always call for major changes at the bottom of these cycles.  i've seen it 5x.  brg444 is a newbie around since February.  he has no experience in the Bitcoin arena if we are to believe what he has said.  

we've got a great opportunity to make major changes for the better in the financial system.  just be patient and hodl.

On that we agree.  It would be nice to see some controlled experimentation first....



As Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's long-time business partner said: “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome”.

This incentive remains a bit troubling.  There should be a way to defeat it other than requiring multi-sig and oracle/authorities for every SPV transaction.
The troubling part is that it would be insidious.  The incentive would build gradually as the sum of all SPV'd coins' UXTOs would grow over time.

I wasn't particularly pleased with Luke's idea of a test plan on their AMA:

I have no doubt it is uncharted territory or, it'll be more interesting than I can imagine, there are some inevitable outcomes one can predict, and there is also the ongoing experiment that is Bitcoin. The Bitcoin experiment is headed into uncharted territory with many interesting outcomes, too. I like experimentation, not sure I like experimenting on experiments without a control.

your input confirms my argument, I unfortunately (fortunately actually) have better things to do in a Friday evening, so I won't be taking the time this evening, or this weekend unless your poke my ego.
I'll come back to it as my job permits next week. None the less i gave you an opportunity to think about the 2 words that would make it difficult to prove my case.

It may be meant to be a new feature, rather than a fix.
Seeing how it works out on an altcoin that has some value (or two) before experimenting on Bitcoin with it, would be beneficial
It changes some incentives... and how that plays out may be more interesting than we imagine, for it is uncharted territory.

well then will you be debating will anything else than ad hominem attacks?

care to bring some arguments that support your position and poke some holes in mine?

define: "job" in that statement?

I think it reflects on your ego, and mental disposition. facts shouldn't require ego, but threatening to mess with the incentive structure that gives my bitcoins value is something worth debating.  

You could at least adress my answers to your questions.

my job is to confront trolls who spread FUD and misinformation. I'd say I did a pretty good job with you

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

 

well sorry about that. but your obscure 1 liner with no reference had me confused.

Save me!  Save Bitcoin!

he's so frantic to shill for Blockstream, you'd think he was being paid by them to do so.

That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future.
I was defending you.  He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me?

You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician.  You can't even tell who is on your side.

Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up.

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

Improves:

Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect.

Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.

Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward.

What enables :

SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.

It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.

The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization