Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 756. (Read 2032266 times)

absolutely.  the "oh, my coins will only be worth more" crowd is missing this point.  especially considering that Bitcoin proponents/owners would be the ones who could get wiped out.

pg 20 Implementation

why would an attacker have to fake a block when faking a SPV proof (tx)?  blocks are created by miners...

still don't see a section 8 on pg 5

Odalv I think we have consensus, I'm sorry any personal attacks.

if I have been understood, its only the later side-blockchain crypto that have the potential to change the incentives that give Bitcoin its value.  

Thanks for that, your pedantry was becoming tiresome.
I think we both understand the mechanism of side chains.  For anyone else reading this I hope they aren't further confused by your explanation.
The block chains are the ledgers, there are as many ledgers as there are block chains.  Side chains create new block chains, each with their own ledger which are reconciled through what is being called a 2 way peg (though that is also an inaccurate term for the mechanism).  
Merging ledgers would be a destructive process where one block chain would then be abandoned afterwards.  I don't think you are meaning that is what is happening, because that would be incorrect.
I know gmaxwell likes the term 2-way peg from his explanation of this last December, I didn't much care for the term then either.  It is a useful shorthand, but it is going to confuse folks once this stuff catches on.

It is probably important to recognize that these are different units of account as well.  Otherwise there would be no need for the SPVs (and the term peg would be completely meaningless if there were only one unit of account).

Scams depress price.  Alt scams, exchange scams, pirate@40 scams, these all depress price, reduce confidence, encourage regulation, and suck wealth and productive resources out of the crypto economy.  SC scams should be expected to do likewise.

Just growing pains. Issuing shares and not expecting regulatory interest is foolish. Presale of new crypto currency or stakes in a network on the other hand is much more interesting. Is.it.similar to seeking equity or is it a simple exchange of goods?

Yes a SC block.  Yes, there needs to be a destroy transaction on SC and a SPV proof on MC.

Did you try looking between sections 7 and 9?  That's where I found section 8.  (Hint, page 5).

An attacker can only fake a proof if they can fake a block, so it is up to the security model of the sidechain.

Can you put that quote in context (where is it in which whitepaper?).... I'm not sure quite what they are referring to.

I hoped for that as well at one point but I always considered it something of a pipe-dream.  Under an 'only Bitcoin for everything' paradigm it's probably completely out the window for technical reasons associated with data distribution.  With sidechains where people have a vested interest in reasonably finite chains of their favor, and where Bitcoin remains reasonably tight and compact, I could see more potential for such a thing developing.

i told you this was gonna happen:

Garrett Keirns isn’t the only bitcoin entrepreneur to come within the sights of the SEC, and some worry that his case may mark the beginning of a larger crackdown into the technically interesting and freewheeling world of crypto currency pre-sales—a crackdown that could affect promising Bitcoin 2.0 projects such as Ethereum, MaidSafe, and Counterparty.[/i]

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/crypto-ipos/

but i like buying Bitcoin.

My hope is that commoditization of ASICS and integration into heat recycling appliances distributed globally can solve that problem

you mean the SC block?  yes, don't these SPV proofs require 2 tx's each, one in MC and one in SC?

there is no section 8

i asked you before about this contest period.  what is the probability of an attacker constructing a fake proof in either direction.

what is this all about?  isn't this a fundamental change to how Bitcoin blocks are linked together?

We require a change to Bitcoin so that rather than each blockheader committing only to the
header before it, it commits to every one of its ancestors.

Interesting read but considering this is the premise of your scenario I have no choice but to disagree with your conclusions.

Txs fees are not escaping Bitcoin miners. As I've explained in another post, instead of miners sharing a % of the same pie, the txs fees are now split into different slices which are all available for miners to MM.

Let me explain it even more simply then.

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger, that is why the 21M cap holds.

The reason it is a single ledger is because the separate data structures are merged into a single data structure with 2-way pegging.

Congratulations, in 3 years on this board I've never once put someone on ignore because I usually like to hear what others have to say even if I disagree. But you are the first. It was a feat, you should be proud.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your constructs over the years here, I appreciate that you the potential for and disposition toward thinking.

It does seem to me that Bitcoin infrastructure provisioning is designed such that it will always approach unprofitably no matter what the growth rate, inflation rate, fee structure, etc.

It is worthwhile to note that different classes of entities can accept different levels of profit.  So, an independent enthusiast class individual might be happy to break even and occasionally make a few bucks while this is not an option for a large commercial.  Whatever the case, Bitcoin as implemented simply does not promote the individual class actor very well.

The take-away is that Bitcoin's only realistic hope is for infrastructure providers to monetize some other aspect of Bitcoin's existence.  For large corporate actors this is a no-brainier.  Monetize the intelligence stream as has been a well proven model over the last 15 years.  The big down-side of this is that actors who are able to monetize in this way are distinctly under the thumb of governments, and governments have a very strong propensity to exercise fine-grained control over their citizens.  Governments are inextricably linked to corporations and will be for the foreseeable future.

As I've mentioned before, sidechains would seem to provide a golden opportunity to monetize Bitcoin as a credible source of backing which they require in order to function.  They thus have a significant interest in keeping it that way.

Right now Bitcoin is fairly credible to at least a cross-section of us in the community because it is free of interference (no 'red-listing', transaction discrimination at the mining level, etc.)  Sidechains seem to me like the last best hope of keeping it that way.

Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block.

Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction.  The headers prove the transaction was added to a block.  (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).

What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins.  If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.

If you are not trading BTC then there is not much reason buying now b/c You already bought at better price years ago.

why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!

There is one Bitcoin ledger.  There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint  >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  
I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.

So did we(SC proponents) changed your mind about SC ?
Or do you still believe it is "Blockstream scam" ?

Will you support 2wp by bitcoin protocol ?