FED buying stocks again?
markets are mind boggling
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 846. (Read 2032266 times)
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.
Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.
TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.
PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
and you see no problem with it being designed and run by a for profit company?
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
^
But miners... vote with their hashpower... honey badger don't care ... or???
But miners... vote with their hashpower... honey badger don't care ... or???
the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
If side chains become a reality their value is still presumably anchored in some way to the value of the original bitcoin blockchain. I.E there is no financial penalty to not moving over to the new (side)chain.
Is the blockstream (side)chain created empty, simply being comprised of locked coins flowing to and from the bitcoin chain?
Who is going to use bitstream coins online? Why would industry switch to a new protocol on a different chain when 0.5 billion dollars are invested in using bitcoin chain? In the future (now?) the vast majority of users will transact bitcoin in centralised wallet services, which are near instantaneous already. How is this functionally different in reality to people using altcoins at present. Instead of 'two way peg' between (side)chain and bitcoin chain, simply insert 'altcoin to bitcoin exchange'. Noone is currently using altcoins to do anything useful today.
If the blockstream (side)chain isn't created empty (or new coins can be created without bitcoins being 'locked') then it sounds like a great exercise in getting loads of bitcoins 'locked' from unsuspecting investors, then allowing early adopters of the blockstream chain (say the founders) to cash out back from the blockstream chain to the bitcoin chain.
Unless I am missing some giant innovation, I think this may simply fizzle out, especially if blocksize improvements occur soon. Would anyone more knowledgeable about this care to comment?
Edit: i don't buy the micropayments is needed for bitcoin success idea, i think that is niche and not really proven viable use case for btc (i could be wrong)
Is the blockstream (side)chain created empty, simply being comprised of locked coins flowing to and from the bitcoin chain?
Who is going to use bitstream coins online? Why would industry switch to a new protocol on a different chain when 0.5 billion dollars are invested in using bitcoin chain? In the future (now?) the vast majority of users will transact bitcoin in centralised wallet services, which are near instantaneous already. How is this functionally different in reality to people using altcoins at present. Instead of 'two way peg' between (side)chain and bitcoin chain, simply insert 'altcoin to bitcoin exchange'. Noone is currently using altcoins to do anything useful today.
If the blockstream (side)chain isn't created empty (or new coins can be created without bitcoins being 'locked') then it sounds like a great exercise in getting loads of bitcoins 'locked' from unsuspecting investors, then allowing early adopters of the blockstream chain (say the founders) to cash out back from the blockstream chain to the bitcoin chain.
Unless I am missing some giant innovation, I think this may simply fizzle out, especially if blocksize improvements occur soon. Would anyone more knowledgeable about this care to comment?
Edit: i don't buy the micropayments is needed for bitcoin success idea, i think that is niche and not really proven viable use case for btc (i could be wrong)
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
maybe Bitcoin can't be everything to everybody but right now i see growth and usage spreading. that's good enough for me. simplicity can be good.
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.
Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.
TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.
PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
and you see no problem with it being designed and run by a for profit company?
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.
Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.
TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.
PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol. Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain. The main chain will not be directly affected?
Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.
relavant section
Quote from: sidechains.pdf
To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.
Thanks. I'm not sure about tinkering with the code either, even in a small way with a soft fork. I was under the impression that these chains could be implemented completely outside.
Is this a silk road moment?
Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol. Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain. The main chain will not be directly affected?
Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.
relavant section
Quote from: sidechains.pdf
To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.
Speaking of potential conflicts of interests:
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/524949510347165696
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/524949510347165696
Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol. Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain. The main chain will not be directly affected?
Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
I've no strong opinion about SCs.
I only gave a cursory glance to the white-paper and far as I can see to use Bitcoin as a parent
chain they "only" need to extend script adding a new opcode to recognise and validate the special
SPV proof they use to implement two-way peg mechanism.
I dunno if the SCs will be successful, but even if implemented nobody will force someone to use
it as long as I'm not missing something obvious.
Having said that you've to fight for what you think are right with all the tools at your disposal.
edit: fix typos
I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?
Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.
Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.
I just feel bad to see you carry this burden of bias and visit you once in a while to offer friendly advice. Hope you don't mind too much
Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact they if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.
I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?
Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.
Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact that if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.
Jump to: