Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 764. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:39:30 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.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:35:28 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?
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:34:24 PM

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  


1. This is an hyperbole and would take a considerably particular turn of event to happen
2. I'm not sure if this is the 100th or 1000th I've said it : miners are incentivised to mine the Bitcoin blockchain as long as there is block subsidy. It is trivial for them to MM whatever chain has value and can create value for them and this is what they will do.


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.    
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
Decentralized Asset Management Platform
November 05, 2014, 06:25:37 PM
this year was  worst year for all commodities including gold,silver,oil also for cryptocurrencies like bitcoin,litecoin etc
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 06:25:28 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?
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:22:02 PM
Huh so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that.

so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth.

if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible.
  

You guys really just skimmed through my post heh  Cheesy

Of course there will be thousands of SC serving differents financial purposes (stock issuance, etc. etc.)

But you can only attach so many additional functions to Bitcoin as money (store of value, means of exchange). Bitcoin as is works perfectly fine as store of value but has some deficiencies as a mean of exchange. Sidechains are here to solve these without relying on trusted third parties in a way that is interoperable with Bitcoin blockchain, preserves the Bitcoin ledger and prevents issues of trust and fractional reserve in the most decentralized way possible

so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 06:18:27 PM
Adrian, I'm not sure you have read the other thread but I will copy this here in case you haven't

Here is Adam Back adressing what seems to be your main concern.

Its not that a sidechain displaces bitcoin hypothetically and that this is bad; a sidechain is bitcoin, its the mechanism to internetwork bitcoin, to build on it.  Sidechains no more displace bitcoin than HTTP displaces the TCP and IP protocol it is transported on.  Alt-coins and alt-shares are in nominal competition with bitcoin, though it seems highly unlikely they would catchup with bitcoin's network effect nor reach an appreciable real-life usage; but sidechains are not in competition.

Bitcoin has one advantage over sidechains - it has the subsidy, and full node security, so I'm sure it'll be able to defend itself against abandonment or insecurity, and sidechains depend on bitcoin anyway so all bitcoin users on which ever chains have a meta-incentive to see bitcoin main remain secure.   We have decades of subsidy ahead to deal with fee-only security for bitcoin, and sidechains may move forward the ways to do that because the sidechain by default has only fee security from the start.

Anyway one potential use for a sidechain is to host a beta for a major new bitcoin version.  If that version after say $1b value running in it for a year, gets upgraded into bitcoin, that hasnt displaced bitcoin, its facilitated its feature and performance upgrade, which is a good thing for everyone.

The exciting thing about the internet wasnt just the ability to send IP packets, but all the applications and permissionless innovation that could be built using that transport.  Same for bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:16:12 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.

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

I thought I had, brg444 is making so much noise it was missed.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9409835

I forgot to add that miners if for profit, only those without Bitcoin savings should welcome MM SC as they get a better return on there mining investment and would be handicapped if Bitcoin diminishing block rewards were limited to Bitcoin the dominant Value Chain.

Looking at examples of past pool operators one may even be incentivized and financially motivated to lock value in the side chain wile doing a MM attack on Bitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 06:10:57 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.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 06:09:52 PM

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  


1. This is an hyperbole and would take a considerably particular turn of event to happen
2. I'm not sure if this is the 100th or 1000th I've said it : miners are incentivised to mine the Bitcoin blockchain as long as there is block subsidy. It is trivial for them to MM whatever chain has value and can create value for them and this is what they will do.

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:09:20 PM

keep the topic to bitcoin and gold. we need Altcoins they not a treat. take that idea elsewhere.  

 Cheesy

you can't make this stuff up.

someone who champion the preservation of Bitcoin's hard money unique ledger and is worried about inflation but says "we need altcoins"

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:05:40 PM
you need to dig way deeper than that rocks.  have you been following all the comments since the paper release here in this thread?  read them all and see if you come to the same conclusion.
I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic
And it shows.
instead of making pronouncements, you should get into the details of what i'm saying to prove me wrong.

I have made several lengthy replies, that several others have supported, and each time you have not responded in any meaningful manner, and simply ignored the thrusts of my counter arguments to your comments by saying something along the lines of "I already addressed that 80 pages ago, take it as a given you're wrong".  


I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.
But yet you would not trust my incessant buy recommendations during  the entire year when you were subbed to my newsletter when bitcoin went straight up.
How does that even come close to answering my simple question?  You clearly don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

I am in the exact same position as notme: CS background (good one), strong knowledge of Bitcoin internals built over 3 years and a decent understanding of SC.

Please explain with specifics HOW sidechains inflate the bitcoin money supply and break Bitcoin's Sound Money property or anything else. If it was discussed 80 pages ago, great then you should be able to easily summarize the past discussion into simple points by now. I believe I have summarized a few times why this is likely to not be the case and why what is being described is simply the (ever present) altcoin threat and nothing more.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:05:21 PM
Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

 Embarrassed

but sidechains are there to save us from altcoins while preserving any useful features they might come up with.


why can't you understand this  Undecided

1:1 sidechains + altcoins features = new & improved Bitcoin ledger = everybody win!

It is very tragic that such a Bitcoin supporter as yourself cannot see the light  Cry

I have only panicked twice since owning bitcoin. First time when the coin validation (white/blacklists) threatened to destroy fungibility. The second time was when sidechains were announced. My fear was the same as cyphers that floating peg sidechains could threaten value and stability of bitcoin.

I have come round to brg's point of view that fixed peg side chains offer new possibilities for bitcoin going forward.

your No4, i have only panicked once, I've been accumulating Bitcoins since Q4 2011, and this was it.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 06:04:27 PM

To consider sidechains and think only of the good ideas it enables and ignore the perils is stupid I don't know where to begin. you can begin comprehensive reading at page 698


 Cheesy

but we've left you guys dozens of page to come up with a plausible, considerable risk that would warrant not to integrate sidechains to Bitcoin and you have continuously failed.

face it, the upside is considerably more interesting AND plausible than any of the strech of the mind paranoiac scenario your team has come up with

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 06:00:47 PM
In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?

if not, do you want it to be?

Separate as in one existing without the other?

Of course not.



Do you want it to Separate?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 05:57:47 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?  

You still don't get it, do you?

Bitcoin is the motor behind sidechains. But you HAVE to continue coming up with conspiracy theory heh  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 05:55:26 PM

In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?

if not, do you want it to be?

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.

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 05:52:27 PM
Huh so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that.

so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth.

if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible.
  

You guys really just skimmed through my post heh  Cheesy

Of course there will be thousands of SC serving differents financial purposes (stock issuance, etc. etc.)

But you can only attach so many additional functions to Bitcoin as money (store of value, means of exchange). Bitcoin as is works perfectly fine as store of value but has some deficiencies as a mean of exchange. Sidechains are here to solve these without relying on trusted third parties in a way that is interoperable with Bitcoin blockchain, preserves the Bitcoin ledger and prevents issues of trust and fractional reserve in the most decentralized way possible
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 05:41:06 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.

Precisely.

To consider sidechains and think only of sidecoins booted on top of it is so ass-backward and stupid I don't know where to begin.


To consider sidechains and think only of the good ideas it enables and ignore the perils is stupid I don't know where to begin. you can begin comprehensive reading at page 698
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 05:39:15 PM
I need to sign off for at least am hour
Jump to: