Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 763.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 07:39:42 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 07:35:11 PM

The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.

I'm referring to your doubt of a tied value peg between the two units

I don't doubt that it is possible to peg it, locking the bitcoin and then guarantee the conversion back to bitcoin at the pegged rate. Only that the economics of it doesn't work as the authors believe. Since it has different characteristics, (that is the point) (and don't forget the difference in liquidity), it would have a different value if it was floated. Therefore, the peg with no restrictions in conversion volume will necessary make value either move fully to bitcoin, or fully to the sidechain.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rocks on November 05, 2014, 07:03:20 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:44:47 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 05, 2014, 06:39:30 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:35:28 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:09:20 PM

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them.

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

It was just a light comment, driven by the fact that Fiat is not actually money. Calm down.

why adopt bitcoin? is light question reflecting the ignorance that we need to destroy competition to make bitcoin succeed. the only problem with fiat is inflation, the majority in the world believe that make it good money.

Bitcoin the Blockchain - not BTC, its the value is resides, BTC is how we manage proof of ownership. it is preserved and regulated because of the incentive structure that is what makes it viable, Bitcoin is the only shot we have an hard money, and the proposed protocol change will Preserve the 21M BTC but allow institutions to extract value from the blockchain by creating assets outside the incentive structure.

this is the same problem with fiat, 1 in a million see the problem of inflation, this proposed change will have the same effect on Bitcoin.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 07:35:11 PM

The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.

I'm referring to your doubt of a tied value peg between the two units

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 07:13:08 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 06:44:15 PM

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

You'll have to explain why because all signs point to the contrary

The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:03:02 PM

Bitcoin the currency will never leave Bitcoin the Blockchain, even with sidechains. Sidechains just gives you more potential uses for your Bitcoins.... locking them gains you tokens that have added functionality.

Side chains create a place to experiment with new functionality, and also create people who have an financial incentive to make sure that functionality never makes it into the main chain.

Do you where else it's possible to test new features?

Testnet.

Where is it possible to test features too invasive for even testnet?

The btcd team has produced a great feature called simnet where you can easily bootstrap a small mining network that tests modifications of the Bitcoin protocol.

All the tools needed to develop and test safe upgrades to the protocol already exist.

If the Bitcoin Core team doesn't have enough software engineering and project management resources to push the protocol forward now, employing half of them at Blockstream and adding new opcodes to Bitcoin isn't going to magically fix anything.

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.

Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case?

The first time I heard about this idea (before it was called sidechains) was a conference where I met Adam Back. Pretty sure it was the first Inside Bitcoins conference in Las Vegas, if not then it would have been the 2013 San Jose conference.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:51:21 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:19:20 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 03:50:12 PM

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement. i've talked about this for years here. how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing. who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a bunch of people cheer, yet they do nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

A sidecoin is another type of money, even if there is the peg. It will have a separate value, but it will not be allowed to float. It will either take over, or more probably, not be used at all. Due to the peg, a binary outcome.

Edit: Used means used for saving, hoarding, kept as a cash balance or kept for any reason, the only thing that gives the money value.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:51:21 PM

whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

If it is pegged 1:1 then BTC goes up in value with it.

If it's not then it's just another altcoin. A backdoor re-introduction of your GOVcoin scenario I suppose. Explain to me again how sidechains created this problem?

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:51:21 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:19:20 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 03:50:12 PM

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement. i've talked about this for years here. how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing. who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a bunch of people cheer, yet they do nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

Well I thought sidecoin was well defined, the same as sxBTC (a bitcoin paralyzed in the blockchain, wandering about in the sidechain until it is extinguished. If you ask me, that is the only form of coin we have to consider from the ~~sidecoin~~ sidechain whitepaper.

I think it was brg444 who started the cloudy thinking here.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:44:47 PM

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

But altcoins so far have not proved to be anything but Bitcoin clones with little innovation of sound economics behind them.

My point was that the world works better using only ONE form of money. Innovation of the money technology != competition.

Altcoins in theory should only exist as a lab for innovation. They have been perverted as pump & dump scheme because of the necessity for them to create their own currency. Now that sidechains exist we remove this issue and return to the essence of altchains : a complementary chain to Bitcoin's economy that serves as a testing ground for new features.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:09:20 PM

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them.

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

... as decided by the free market.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 06:44:15 PM

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

You'll have to explain why because all signs point to the contrary

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:34:24 PM

I'll point my miners wherever i get the biggest reward, (value as i define it) I'll MM anything of value, if my business is sustained by tx feed in a SC blocks, and the Bitcoin Block reward is not a significant income stream, I will have no incentive to mine it. the hashrate will grow on the chain that has the most value, I may even keep earning income on the SC and contribute to a coordinated attack to prevent people moving out of the profitable SC and into Bitcoin, note there would be an insignificant cost to me to do so, as I get my income from the SC.

The dynamics have changed since SC has enter the scene.

You are no more required to only mine one chain. You can simultaneously MM ANY chain that has considerable value and support the system has a whole. Creating a security hole in any of the interconnecting chains can be damageable to all of them you not only do you have economic incentive to mine all of them to secure different streams of revenue but as a miner you should also support most chains who gain any traction and community traction to secure the whole ecosystem.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:34:24 PM

I'll MM anything of value

In a SC scenario, there is no more only one chain with value. And growth in value of other, interconnected chains likely converge to all the other chains.

Of all the likely scenario, the death of the main chain because is the most far fetched one as it is the root for the whole system.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:44:47 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 05, 2014, 06:39:30 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:35:28 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:09:20 PM

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them.

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

It was just a light comment, driven by the fact that Fiat is not actually money. Calm down.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hdbuck on November 05, 2014, 06:46:38 PM

hehehe just colling things a bit in here: ^^

Quote from: criptix on November 05, 2014, 06:41:36 PM

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

Debt as % of GDP:

103.56%

Interesting Facts

   You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 69,719 times with the debt amount!

   If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 1,955,980 km, or 1,215,389 miles high!

   That's equivalent to 5.09 trips to the Moon!

yeah to the moon Roll Eyes

so the cost for hyper inflating paper dollars is not viable.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 04:45:36 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:40:37 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 05, 2014, 04:19:24 PM

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat Cheesy

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange. If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

Apropos decentralized exchange, I found this interesting bit in the sidecoin white paper:

"Appendix C Atomic swaps"

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Page 26

Basically a trade where either both payments succeed, or both payments do not succeed. (Risk free trading).

I see no reason that this requires different coins where value is pegged together.

Is it possible to do this today without changing any of the two coin types?

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Erdogan on November 05, 2014, 06:44:15 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:19:20 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 03:50:12 PM

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement. i've talked about this for years here. how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing. who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a bunch of people cheer, yet they do nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

hehehe just colling things a bit in here: ^^

Quote from: criptix on November 05, 2014, 06:41:36 PM

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

Debt as % of GDP:

103.56%

Interesting Facts

   You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 69,719 times with the debt amount!

   If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 1,955,980 km, or 1,215,389 miles high!

   That's equivalent to 5.09 trips to the Moon!

yeah to the moon Roll Eyes

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rocks on November 05, 2014, 06:39:30 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:35:28 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:09:20 PM

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them.

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 04:40:19 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:19:20 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 03:50:12 PM

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement. i've talked about this for years here. how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing. who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a bunch of people cheer, yet they do nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 06:25:28 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 06:22:02 PM

so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)

Logical outcome of what exactly?

And what do you mean by the last part of your comments?

i take it you agree all the above were possible
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9449317

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 763. (Read 2032266 times)