Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 765.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 05:17:15 PM

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?

But that's the point my friend! Sidechains are not decentralized exchange for altcoins! It is much more interesting than that.

And you concern about miners abandoning the mainchain is not very plausible considering its block subsidy will continue for a long, long time and every miners will want a piece of that.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:48:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 04:45:22 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.

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

cypher may be right that investing in them is foolish, i disagree with him on that but hold no significant alts at this time. But no one needs saving from Altcoins that's a preposterous idea to be discussed over at the altcoin forum.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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?

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:29:23 PM

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:24:39 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 05:17:15 PM

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.

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.

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.

Even if we pretend you aren't full of shit, how does that even come close to answering my simple question? You clearly don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 05:26:05 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:07:51 PM

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?

you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!?

the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !?

what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function?

Yes, just do it on MC

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:14:26 PM

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

You'll risk a network and infrastructure several orders of magnitude bigger because "the recovery after 0.8.1" was impressive? Huh

You're supposed to be the guy who wants to protect the Bitcoin blockchain Huh

That is not a very cautious way to go about it

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:45:51 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:26:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:09:19 PM

...

so no contest then.

no contest, I win, right?
Cheesy

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:24:39 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 05:17:15 PM

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.

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.

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.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:23:35 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 05, 2014, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:14:26 PM

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ?

No, not wait until last minute. Work together now to expand block size.

But doesn't that hurt the incentive structure for miners? Now we have to store more information, use more bandwidth and cpu to handle more transactions, decreasing the subsidy/"resource expenditure". Block scarcity will also decrease, keeping transaction fees low.

As a miner, I'll take replacing a NOOP with a contestable SPV proof over raising the block size any day of the week.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:10:29 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 05:08:48 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:57:44 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.

But this is not the same as saying BTC can't move around and be used on other sidechains.

Yes it is. Those SC's are fundamentally different with different properties and security.

But conserve the ledger intact. That is all that matters right?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:07:51 PM

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?

you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!?

the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !?

what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function?

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 05:17:15 PM

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.

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on November 05, 2014, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:14:26 PM

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ?

No, not wait until last minute. Work together now to expand block size.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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

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

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

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:14:26 PM

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ?

Edit:
Not only core devs. Every developer trying touse bitcoin.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:01:39 PM

Wow, you seem so certain of this. Can we see the research on this? Both technical and economic? Because if you're wrong, we're all going to lose a lot of money.

But it sounds like you'd like us all to just trust your judgment.

Yes.

I am certain that you don't understand sidechain.

I don't need to present a research. Slowly but surely people in this thread are realizing it also. You just need to humble yourself, take a step back and gather your thoughts to come to the same realizaton

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

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.

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?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:13:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:11:56 PM

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:10:09 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:07:51 PM

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

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:33:08 PM

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

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.

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

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.

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?

How about 7tps?

Maybe, maybe not. No one knows but it certainly isn't a problem now. And if it becomes one, why not innovate on Mc ?

So you'd rather risk it all than allow development to happen on a segregated portion of the network?

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:11:56 PM

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:10:09 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:07:51 PM

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

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:33:08 PM

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

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.

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

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.

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?

How about 7tps?

Maybe, maybe not. No one knows but it certainly isn't a problem now. And if it becomes one, why not innovate on Mc ?

So you'd rather risk it all than allow development to happen on a segregated portion of the network?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: notme on November 05, 2014, 05:10:09 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 05, 2014, 05:07:51 PM

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

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 04:33:08 PM

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

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.

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

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.

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?

How about 7tps?

Maybe, maybe not. No one knows but it certainly isn't a problem now. And if it becomes one, why not innovate on Mc ?

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 765. (Read 2032266 times)