Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 847. (Read 2032266 times)

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.

this is bold, pun intended

all this monkeying with bitcoin makes me think of the unix koan...

http://catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.html

Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer, who was very proud of his mastery of C, said: “How can this be? C is the language in which the very kernel of Unix is implemented!”

Master Foo replied: “That is so. Nevertheless, there is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer grew distressed. “But through the C language we experience the enlightenment of the Patriarch Ritchie! We become as one with the operating system and the machine, reaping matchless performance!”

Master Foo replied: “All that you say is true. But there is still more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer scoffed at Master Foo and rose to depart. But Master Foo nodded to his student Nubi, who wrote a line of shell script on a nearby whiteboard, and said: “Master programmer, consider this pipeline. Implemented in pure C, would it not span ten thousand lines?”

The programmer muttered through his beard, contemplating what Nubi had written. Finally he agreed that it was so.

“And how many hours would you require to implement and debug that C program?” asked Nubi.

“Many,” admitted the visiting programmer. “But only a fool would spend the time to do that when so many more worthy tasks await him.”

“And who better understands the Unix-nature?” Master Foo asked. “Is it he who writes the ten thousand lines, or he who, perceiving the emptiness of the task, gains merit by not coding?”

Upon hearing this, the programmer was enlightened.

+1

Lets really plant the flag with Bitcoin first.

This is exactly how its all going to unfold imho. Bitcoin is perfect.

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.

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.

Initially I thought the whole idea was coming from Back but according  to nullc, he was the one to spear head this. I've had many public disagreements with nullc for a long time around the economics of Bitcoin and what I've perceived to be a dismissive attitude toward non dev opinion and a misunderstanding of economics and game theory.  The bitcoin.org press centre debacle with Andreas is a  great example. I've always wondered why he and Luke were never hired by a Bitcoin company. He claims he's had lots of offers so I have to accept that. But if you watch the Princeton University video on Bitcoin with Ed Felton, you'll see he's kinda different and he admits it . Otoh, I give him major props for contributing so much to bitcoin and our technical understanding of it.  He's helped me in that regard and clearly he is respected by the other core devs.

That's what makes this play so interesting. nullc despite his own political deficiencies has managed to apparently recruit Pieter and Matt, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. Mark, I have no clue but he seems to be more emotional about this whole project and has tried to shout me down  on  reddit several times.

Personally, I think Bitcoin should be left alone to do its thing. It's too early to be monkeying with the code especially by a for profit company despite its members. But i could be wrong too. What they're proposing introduces complexity on a major scale and the effects  on mining is unclear and have the potential to disrupt Bitcoin. Despite what they've said, I doubt any of them have significant amounts invested in Bitcoin. Nullc has been surprisingly skeptical of bitcoin and we know Back has publicly admitted he missed it. The others i really wouldn't know. The point is, why let a for profit bunch of guys make changes to the code?

Ugh, I stopped reading here:



If that statement is true, we're all done here; no cryptocurrency can ever have much value. This is fundamentally what many are not understanding; specifically the startup/tech-only focused people. They get all wide-eyed about the tech without considering the economics. They fail to realize that people need to have confidence that the dominant coin will remain dominant for a long time, or else it'll be unlikely that people will be willing to store much value in *any* coin.....and without value, the tech they're so fascinated with isn't useful.

This thread was started in Mar of 2012.

Yes, I agree. This is a bullshit answer.

Originally I wrote a much longer response but my browser froze and I got lazy re-writing it. Anyway, I still fail to see why litecoin, Monero or any other coin would be considered a hedge in the event of an issue with bitcoin. If anything a failure in bitcoin would be catastrophic for cryptocurrencies in general and would set the community back years before something else might catch on. The confidence would simply be gone. I have a hard time believing that people spent so much money investing in Litecoin because there might be a failure with bitcoin at some point down the road. That being said, maybe I need to just have less faith in humanity. 

Gold collapsing? Gold is at the same rate as i saw it year ago.
BTC came down to 400$ from 1200$

I could see them making money doing consulting and development for people who want a sidechain for some particular purpose.

I personally have a good deal of confidence in some of the folks involved in this effort.  Though I rarely risk much on software I cannot compile myself, I would probably used binaries released by this group as long as I felt that they had visibility.  (I use radio code blobs developed by Sam Leffler as a fr'instance.)  So their stamp in that respect could be worth something as well.  I'm thinking simply of specific sidechains which those who commissioned the work did not want opensource.  Naturally I would be highly disappointed (and very surprised) if their core work were not opensourced.

Not without better vetting of the cryptography, which would likely take years.

Correction: I didn't realize they are proposing the SPV-proof method for coin return rather than the zkSNARK method.

Given that, cryptography is a lesser concern, though I would be still be concerned about mining incentives (which aren't that well understood for even Bitcoin itself).

The summary is that I really don't know if this is a good idea. I'd want to see much more careful analysis first.

The technology can't be effectively evaluated or understood when separated from the economic and business considerations any more than a coherent analysis of Bitcoin can occur without consideration of its economics. The are inseparable. His position is unsound.

1. You ignored this part: "both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise." That could include all manner of things that have little to nothing to do with existing code, including mining centralization, bad decisions by core developers, bad influences by existing or new commercial interests, too cozy with regulators, too hostile to regulators, being the target of a deliberate attack simply because it is bigger, etc.

2. Let's not forget that Bitcoin is vastly more valuable than Litecoin or anything else. Thus a market-impled hedge suggests that such a result is very unlikely, but not zero. Overall I think Bitcoin is around 90% of the total cryptocoin market cap (LTC is <10%). We are arguing about an edge case, but all this "sidechains/altchains are better than altcoins" argument is trying to do after all is drive down that 10%, which is pretty small to begin with. Can you really, with 90%+ confidence, say that nothing could go seriously wrong with Bitcoin that wouldn't somehow benefit some other coin? I think the answer is no, with or without side chains, but perhaps you disagree.


I agree with you that this milestone has increased the probability of side chains being developed and deployed. It is a conceptual leap go from that fairly obvious fact to what the eventual outcome might be.

20-30% of all of the bitcoins? Worst case it should be far lower, somewhere closer to 2% if one of the side chains fail. Its the same concept at play now - the larger the cap, the larger the target. If there is an exploit, someone will find it given a sufficient motivation to do so and that will be far less than a billion dollars.

one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin

-- I never understood the hedge argument for litecoin. If something goes wrong with bitcoin, why wouldn't it also go wrong with litecoin? After all they share the majority of their code.

let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers.

-- We don't know who scooped up who - though I guess we could ask in the AMA tomorrow. The point I was making is that they are a part of this project, which to me is a major indicator of the probability of the success of this project getting incorporated into the code.

https://twitter.com/austinhill/status/525032498049593346

Yes, lots of linear thinking going on over in the sidechain camp. I keep bringing up the possible negative effects of a sidechain losing 20 to 30% of all btc and all they can say is "that will just make my coin worth more!".