Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 775.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 10:25:51 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 10:20:35 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 10:08:44 AM

scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true. MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 04, 2014, 07:54:01 PM

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

I wouldn't put it past some of these guys.

In trying to imagine a way to solve some of the moving stake issues I dreampt up and idea which would provide sidechains without sidechains by shuffling secret keys. Sort of like stealth addresses in spirit but amplified exponentially. In essence it would be a big till with all kinds of different fractional chunks of BTC shuffling around to those who need 'change'. Such a thing could potentially really fuck up the day of those trying to track value flows in part because there is no correlation between the sender and receiver other then they happen to be members of the same system.

Obviously the secret keys would be locked in various ways and if the lock is broken the backing vanishes (back into pure Bitcoinland.)

oblivi

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 501

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 02:08:25 PM

oil? who the hell needs oil?

Jesus thats scary. it reminds me of other graph unfortunately..

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 07:57:39 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 04, 2014, 07:54:01 PM

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

shhh, you are spoiling it.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 04, 2014, 07:54:01 PM

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 07:03:52 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 06:59:11 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 01:11:45 PM

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

- SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
- Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names 2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

it's not the same. you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.

Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp.
If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges.

I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity).

Quote

yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

Using different 2wp hacking can be harder b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC)
This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 06:59:11 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 01:11:45 PM

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

- SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
- Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names 2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

it's not the same. you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain. yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 01:11:45 PM

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

- SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
- Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names 2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 12:03:52 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 11:08:39 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 11:00:45 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 04, 2014, 10:20:35 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 10:08:44 AM

scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

faster tx times.

I think it is not possible.
Global MM SC + faster tx times => is not viable SC => it cost much more resources (disk space) than Bitcoin
but it is possible to use a lot of LOCAL SC (with small market cap. distributed over globe) for fast local transaction cafe, dinner ...

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

If SC suck as much as SC-discussions then we've got nothing to fear from them.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 02:08:25 PM

oil? who the hell needs oil?

Lots of people needs to sell, anyway. The times of production cost of 4 dollars are gone. Now you have to also calculate with social cost, the cost to keep folks just happy enough not to topple the masters. To stem the arab spring flood. Easily 80 dollars. They have to continue selling, even on lower prices. Turbulence ahead.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 03:09:19 PM

I used the word "value" intentionally, rather than the word "price" to be meaning both 1) and 2) inclusively.
Price, Utility, Efficacy... "virtue"

Thanks I agree with you're statement btw. (Maybe I'm conflicted on the value thing)

I guess in my mind what gives Bitcoin it's value is the incentive structure, I'm concerned that if there is an existential risk to those incentives then it's a threat to the value that incentive structure creates.

But that's the limit of my understanding maybe we are due to learn and repeat a fiew mistakes this time around.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: justusranvier on November 04, 2014, 03:31:41 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 04, 2014, 12:44:45 PM

I hear ya bro. I hope that 'artificial production quota' limiting BTC availability to 21 million doesn't drive you to crazy.

If you can't figure out the difference ledger integrity and production quotas then you're probably not going to be able to offer much of value to this discussion.

The ledger would work equally well with or without this 'artificial production cap'. OTOH, the magnitude of ledger and the structures within it have a significant impact on it's performance. That is to say, transaction rate and use patterns. Don't pull pseudo-technical word-salad out of your ass to make a point. That dog won't hunt with some fraction of the community.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: tvbcof on November 04, 2014, 12:44:45 PM

I hear ya bro. I hope that 'artificial production quota' limiting BTC availability to 21 million doesn't drive you to crazy.

If you can't figure out the difference ledger integrity and production quotas then you're probably not going to be able to offer much of value to this discussion.

lebing

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 02:47:56 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 04, 2014, 12:43:16 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11206596/Dollar-smashes-through-resistance-as-mega-rally-gathers-pace.html

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 29, 2014, 08:29:33 PM

(New & Improved! Hat tip to da2ce7.)

The USD is entering the 'red giant' phase, having exhausted its primary fuel of gold and silver backing and now being powered by the less dense energy source of hydrocarbon hegemony. Although less productive, the economic bloat of malinvestment results in a higher apparent magnitude via the financialization process....

c'mon man. i've been calling for a USD rally and putting up this chart even before summer when i put up this interview of AEP by McAlvaney. can't find the post buried in this thread somewhere:

http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com/tag/ambrose-evans-pritchard/

the market is just insane. Are you actually navigating this nonsense?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 02:06:03 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 04, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 01:45:17 PM

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.

So Bitcoin system stability is predicated on cold wallets which are not touched???

(Actually, I would not rule it out. In some ways they are indeed acting as a deflationary force in what is currently a massively inflationary system. That's a little pathetic.)

pathetic being your opinion. Daniel K wouldn't agree with you and neither do i.

I'll buy it, but it completely smokes out all those who try to achieve their objectives by arguing that Bitcoin is some sort of a wholesome exchange network with free individuals doing daily life business.

Once that nonsense is out of the way we can get down to business and focus on the real issues. High on my list would be how to achieve the objective of providing a place for the aformentioned individuals to do their thing because I think it is important.

I'll tell you in no uncertain terms that my cold storage wallets are going to open and pass through Coinbase to get fiat for use in the real world, or they are going to open to put some value on a handful of sidechains which serve my (mutually conflicting) needs. Probably they will open and the BTC will be channeled in both directions in some proportion.

Basically, if you think that locking up BTC is critical to fight the massive system inflation, you should be delighted about sidechains.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 04, 2014, 02:08:29 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 01:11:45 PM

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

in weighting the differences,
your first point:
there is only one application of SC that I understand as a threat to Bitcoin and that is an incentivised p2p decentralised competing means of exchange.

The opportunities offered by SC are not limited to SC, there are other solutions that offer the same opportunities just less the decentralized competing means of exchange.

NL I also get confused by your use of value are you talking about price

yes, but not only this.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 04, 2014, 02:08:29 PM

I wear 2 hats,

hat 1) I am a looking out for my best interest in this context Value = I can exchange for more wealth. (this definition is related to price - bitcoins value fluctuates day to day) this is what I understand when I read it in the context you used it. ( the same motives that drive out financial system today)
hat 2) I am a member of a global community, in this context Value = the existence of a voluntarily adopted and self organizing incentive structure that creates a universal ledger of record used in exchanges of value.

when the two values are alined it means value for me, but when you talk about SC being a "side" "Chain", the global community ledger of value is degraded and my projections altered.

How Bitcoins incentives are arranged is the key principals of what makes Bitcoin valuable, not the price. I've been building the Global egalitarian ledger by contributing wealth as its principals have value in the border definition of global success.

i find it hard to see the value when enabling a decentralized competing means of exchange that alters the incentives that makes Bitcoin valuable - is it fair to call this creating value - it looks like the value is hat 1) type value, and that's not good for Bitcoin, if it compromises hat 2) type value.

I used the word "value" intentionally, rather than the word "price" to be meaning both 1) and 2) inclusively.
Price, Utility, Efficacy... "virtue"

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 04, 2014, 12:43:16 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11206596/Dollar-smashes-through-resistance-as-mega-rally-gathers-pace.html

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 29, 2014, 08:29:33 PM

(New & Improved! Hat tip to da2ce7.)

The USD is entering the 'red giant' phase, having exhausted its primary fuel of gold and silver backing and now being powered by the less dense energy source of hydrocarbon hegemony. Although less productive, the economic bloat of malinvestment results in a higher apparent magnitude via the financialization process....

c'mon man. i've been calling for a USD rally and putting up this chart even before summer when i put up this interview of AEP by McAlvaney. can't find the post buried in this thread somewhere:

http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com/tag/ambrose-evans-pritchard/

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 04, 2014, 02:19:32 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 04, 2014, 01:51:19 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 04, 2014, 01:45:17 PM

Quote from: cbeast on November 04, 2014, 01:40:06 PM

If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.

cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks.

And we'd leave behind those that can't or won't.

that will be so sad if this happens before bitcoin grows up. - all those Bitcoin wont survive pundits will have more political clout. and i wont hit my target exchange steps.

cypher there is a little risk in opening cold storage, but docent the risk increase the more valuable they become?

if we make a mistake here it cost us a hundred years until ppl get another chance.

i'm talking theoretical risks. if you're on the tail end of a migration to a SC, supposedly the SPV proof will be reliable i would hope. just the act of digging them out for some ppl is inconvenient and may be a risk to security and identity. just saying.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 775. (Read 2032266 times)