Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 776. (Read 2032266 times)

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 doesn't the risk increase the more valuable Bitcoin become?

we'll see a to party system develop,  it'll be called the 2 pool party system, the libertarians will still be on the side.

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

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.

oil?  who the hell needs oil?

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

agreed.  and we have that right now given all mining is concentrated on MC currently.

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.)

edit: security --> system stability

this is yet another possible problem i mentioned pages back; the fragmentation of mining that could lead to widespread vulnerabilities.  brg444 will say this won't happen but who knows?

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

While I recognise the possibility of a SC taking away all the miners, the miners would no longer be able to verify their chains based on Bitcoin. They could attack each other. Catch-22.

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

Are ASICs considered cutting edge technology? When someone designs a breakthrough miner that makes ASIC look like an abacus, then a 99% attack will be cheap.


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

Ach!  You guys are like hamsters on a wheel.  Both ah yuz!

It was clear to me when I thought about mining (2011-ish) that mining will always reach unprofitabilty (so it's just better to buy BTC if one wants to make a dime considering the risks and hassle.)  I bought one 'rig'.  It was the first batch of USB ASICS available in the U.S. as a collector's item. I had no intention of powering it up and never did.

The point is that if one is basing their conception of economics in Bitcoinland on hashing, one is falling into the same trap as debt-based monetary solutions do with interest.  The monster chasing you is empowered by the very energy you spend trying to escape him.  This could spell doom for Bitcoin which has provoked an amazing amount of sha256 power already (which could turn against it), is wildly volatile, and is a significant threat to powerful interests.

I see sidechains as the most likely solution to this problem.  Just as a heard of ungulates can break up when attacked by a cheetah, run in multiple directions, then re-group when the danger is passed, sidechains can do the same.  Just as the herd survives (absent a weakling) so can distributed crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin can remain the foundation (the grasslands) which form the playing field, fantastic.  If not, something else probably will.

Again, blindly trying to grow hashing power in order to preserve the grasslands is doomed to failure as a strategy in my opinion.  Some alternate method of preserving them is really the only hope.

So what altcoins are waiting to test the sidechain concept?

Let's them try first and see what happens.

now that's one helluva way to put it.

and i agree.

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.

justusranvier just identified the why we think SC innovation brings enhancements to Bitcoin.  
it looks like SC propose to lock your Bitcoin away in exchange for using another system with a different incentive structure.

i just have serious concerns about my perceived breakage of the BTC currency to its blockchain link which i've always considered to be sacred.

maybe my conception of Bitcoin is wrong.  i'm looking for answers to those concerns.

until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate.  i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels.  there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo.

Nonsense!
Enough hashrate for what?
http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brix
Current cost of 51% attack = $557,818,552
That is about the total value of ALL COINS TRANSACTED IN A DAY.
https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
By what metric is this "not enough"?  It could be just easily argued that it is "too much".

Just how many double spends do you think could be pulled off before the hostile miners get isolated?

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