We (I) are shorting gold from 2008
Target 200-400 for now.
Target 200-400 for now.
So you're underwater for around 6 years?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 849. (Read 2032266 times)
So you're underwater for around 6 years?
We (I) are shorting gold from 2008
Target 200-400 for now.
Target 200-400 for now.
Ohh and I forgot to add importantly, that "and it's seems nothing special".
We (I) are shorting gold from 2008
Target 200-400 for now.
Target 200-400 for now.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
Gavin should be very pro-sidechains. It solves his need for scalability.
Many plug-ins can be installed on top of bitcoin.
e.g. sidechain for local economy (town, country) .. "main" blockchain can remain small
how do you secure it?
This bitcoins/sidechain will be only for daily expenses. (you are not forced to use it, there will be fast confirmation time. And you can easy fund(and withdraw) to main chain. No other party is needed. You own the private keys. It is protocol feature)
Edit:
Local merchant will do PoW to prevent double spent. They will not mine new bitcoins.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
Gavin should be very pro-sidechains. It solves his need for scalability.
Many plug-ins can be installed on top of bitcoin.
e.g. sidechain for local economy (town, country) .. "main" blockchain can remain small
how do you secure it?
buy coffe and newspaper in local sidechain and keep savings in bitcoin blockchain (or even Quantum computer resistant sidechain :-) )
Good luck with that. sidechain for local economy (town, country)
This is actually a great idea.Local currencies should be given their chance to shine so that their inherent brokenness can be made obvious to everyone.
Kind of like what Freicoin did for the concept of demurrage.
buy coffe and newspaper in local sidechain and keep savings in bitcoin blockchain (or even Quantum computer resistant sidechain :-) )
sidechain for local economy (town, country)
This is actually a great idea.Local currencies should be given their chance to shine so that their inherent brokenness can be made obvious to everyone.
Kind of like what Freicoin did for the concept of demurrage.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
Gavin should be very pro-sidechains. It solves his need for scalability.
Many plug-ins can be installed on top of bitcoin.
e.g. sidechain for local economy (town, country) .. "main" blockchain can remain small
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
Gavin should be very pro-sidechains. It solves his need for scalability.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
One of the practical advantages of gold is that it is fairly immune from 'good ideas' necessary to scale up. In physical form at least.
Gold is a great hedge for bitcoin either not panning out the way we think it will or Governments around the world with large holdings disagreeing with the U.S and bidding the price up to clear debts.
Bitcoin + Gold = freedom from monetray bs
isnt there supposed to be a consensus amongst the network before any fork to be effective?
Ya, but 'the network' is, unhappily, implemented as an increasingly small and centralized group of miners by my read. 'Consensus' for someone looking at a multi-million dollar mining facility being appropriated is basically 'do what the fuck the host tells you to do.' If that means run the 'official' protocol issued by the 'official' bitcoin.org governing body, that's what most miners will likely do.
One of the practical advantages of gold is that it is fairly immune from 'good ideas' necessary to scale up. In physical form at least.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.
so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.
The proposed transaction rate increase that Gavin seems to favor is both useless for fostering a 'one currency solution' for all economic activity because of the extremely modest increase, and ensures that Bitcoin will eventually mutate beyond recognition due to the exponential nature. It makes little sense to me, but I like it anyway because it's predictable and would seem to align with my operations out over the course of my lifetime (as a late-40's aged dude.)
Or does it foster predictability? One of my hypothesis is that this action is just a way to get people used to hard forks and thinking of them as no real big deal. Most of the userbase (by body-count) at this point won't have much of a clue about what a 'fork' means anyway. Just a software upgrade at most, and for those using many of the client solutions it won't even require that. Being able to fork at will (or on demand of the authorities) makes it possible for pretty much anything to happen going forward. Hell, it might even be possible to re-issue 'lost' (aka, unregistered) coins, or even bump up the 21x10^6 limit if need be.
isnt there supposed to be a consensus amongst the network before any fork to be effective?
The situation isn't helped in any way by people using terms of art they clearly don't understand, like "scarce."
i hate that term with a passion. it validates Bitcoin skeptics impression that there aren't enough bitcoins. Voorhees uses that term very loosely. that's why you'll hear me use the descriptor "fixed supply" all the time when i describe Bitcoin.
it turns out that there is plenty of gold to go around in the world when it was more useful as a reserve money. as a matter of fact, if you include gold derivative trading on the Comex or LBMA, the dollar value of all gold trading is greater than most currencies.
fixed supply is what is most important when talking about a store of value.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.
so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.
The proposed transaction rate increase that Gavin seems to favor is both useless for fostering a 'one currency solution' for all economic activity because of the extremely modest increase, and ensures that Bitcoin will eventually mutate beyond recognition due to the exponential nature. It makes little sense to me, but I like it anyway because it's predictable and would seem to align with my operations out over the course of my lifetime (as a late-40's aged dude.)
Or does it foster predictability? One of my hypothesis is that this action is just a way to get people used to hard forks and thinking of them as no real big deal. Most of the userbase (by body-count) at this point won't have much of a clue about what a 'fork' means anyway. Just a software upgrade at most, and for those using many of the client solutions it won't even require that. Being able to fork at will (or on demand of the authorities) makes it possible for pretty much anything to happen going forward. Hell, it might even be possible to re-issue 'lost' (aka, unregistered) coins, or even bump up the 21x10^6 limit if need be.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.
so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.
Gavin doesn't want to completely remove the blocksize limit; he just wants to increase it in accordance with Moore's Law (roughly). So, space will still be scarce.
The situation isn't helped in any way by people using terms of art they clearly don't understand, like "scarce."
"Scarce" is a binary term. A resource is either scarce, or non-scarce. Space in a block is scarce regardless of whether or not the size of a block is limited by production quotas.
In economics, "scarce" just means "not infinite".
Until it's possible to transmit an infinite amount of data with zero time delay without consuming any energy or using hardware, space in a Bitcoin block will be scarce, even if the average block size is 1 TB.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.
so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.
Gavin doesn't want to completely remove the blocksize limit; he just wants to increase it in accordance with Moore's Law (roughly). So, space will still be scarce.
http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.
so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.
Jump to: