Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Toros]

The issue is that both these markets are very competitive. You can never know which one is going to go up. Currently, there is tough competition between them. Experts have been saying that Bitcoin's value will go further down this year. But there is no guanrantee or assurance.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

Do the players (I guess the devs and miners) all agree miners rule? Is this a fundamental understanding of BCH or not make any sense at all?

 

[cypherdoc]

no one rules. the marketplace is composed of multiple players; users, merchants, miners, devs, speculators, whomever_else_you_can_come_up_with. all have a say. this is what makes it not so easy of an investment but one which is destined to soar.

 

[Norway]

what we might expect to happen seems clear. a variety of tokens that require no protocol change will be implemented first, since this process is permissionless and underway. these solutions may or may not serve as the foundation for viable businesses/use cases; either way we will learn about their capabilities and limitations. as the dust settles we will know if solutions that require a protocol change have market support, and time will have been gained to thoroughly test them.

I don't approve of this "wait and see" approach. BCH is competing with other currencies, and the block reward is shrinking at a fast pace.

We should aim for a great token solution, and do it as fast as possible. GROUP is currently stalled by the wrong reasons. The video conference showed this very clearly. Shammah Chancellor act as he is the gatekeeper of bitcoin development.

I wouldn't mind a persistant chainsplit if some miners would support GROUP and that is what it takes.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

[doublepost=1532027871][/doublepost]

no one rules. the marketplace is composed of multiple players; users, merchants, miners, devs, speculators, whomever_else_you_can_come_up_with. all have a say. this is what makes it not so easy of an investment but one which is destined to soar.

I don't know. And see the post just above this one about chainsplit. Perhaps my question can be phrased differently. Forking takes everybody to a new place... aka miners rule?

 

[Mengerian]

Usenet was once the most important information resource for the Internet, but has since been marginalised beyond recognition. The rest of the world wanted far more, and the web was a game-changer. Do we think that the 21st century global economy can be satisfied with just peer-to-peer currency? Or will thousands of use-cases come to drive the ultimate success of the few blockchains which dominate and prevail long-term?

I agree with this. I think BCH should try to foster an system where people can experiment and try many things. In my opinion, the top priorities should be:

1. Make the best peer-to-peer electronic cash possible
2. Facilitate secondary uses of the blockchain (eg. memo.cash, tokens, etc.)

My issue with GROUP is that it's designed for a specific use (tokens). I think the base system should be a "dumb protocol" that doesn't anticipate specific applications, but just provides simple building blocks that can be used for many different purposes. Right now tokenization seems like a big thing, and maybe it will continue be very important in the future. But maybe there will also be many, even hundreds or thousands, of other secondary uses that can be built on top of the Bitcoin Cash network.

I studied Electrical Engineering in the 1990s, and at the time there were many competing networking protocols. In the Universities, we studied "ISDN" as the next thing, and better than TCP/IP, since it had more advanced capabilities. It was also being pushed by the major telecom companies such as Nortel. At the time ISDN performed better than TCP/IP for uses such as telephony. The thing was though, that it was more complicated and "hard coded" in capabilities. In the end, TCP/IP won, even though it was "dumber" than ISDN, and provided worse Quality of Service for telephone and video applications. It won because it facilitated experimentation and "permissionless innovation". Everyone would just build their protocols on TCP/IP and be on the same network as everyone else. It was also easier to support (for example to include it natively in operating systems). So now, even though IP had crappier support for voice, no-one uses ISDN, and everyone uses Voice over IP.

So that's why in skeptical about building specific secondary uses into the base protocol. If there are specific functions that can be added that to enhance tokenization, that could be good to add. But each capability added should do one simple thing (like the opcodes), and be able to be mixed and matched, and potentially used for other innovative things. It should not be a complex device that does many things bundled together for one specific use.

On a related note, Daniel Krawisz latest video touches on some of these ideas about how facilitating experimentation and creativity can build long-term value:

 

[Norway]

@Mengerian
I totally follow your philosophy and agree with it. However, I see GROUP more like giving LEGO different colors, when there was only one color before. Or adding subfolders to a file system. A lot of bang for the buck.

@theZerg 's GROUP document show how different more complex usecases can be made with BCH's existing script capabilities.

 

[cypherdoc]

WTH am i hearing here from Oldenburg? he thinks of BCH as merely a token and makes the case for the blockchain to be "multicurrency" with other tokens having the "exact same properties as cash". this will be competitive and dilutional to the BCH price folks. earlier on in the video he made a similar point in paying a bill with a combination of BCH and an alternative token acting as cash:

 

[cypherdoc]

Amaury sees the same problems. in the case of a redeemable token, it doesn't matter if the token is enforced by the blockchain. if the issuer refuses to redeem your token for the asset it represents, you still have to take them to court. in that case, the token should go to zero. and that's not necessarily a given. if the issuer can make a good case for refusing redemption, such as preventing a murder (to use a dramatic example), the market around the price of the token might not budge at all. this price support would be from more of a social trust with zero dependency on a technical trust (the blockchain). also, in regards to baking a fiat currency into the BCH blockchain, WTH for? you seriously want to bring your main competitor into our wheelhouse and provide them the same protection and security of the BCH coin (as JVP was once fond of saying in regards to sidechains)? :

 

[cypherdoc]

wow, i am really sorry that i've taken until now to listen to this Token WG video. i'm even more sorry to see that the BU team got trounced in economic logic by mainly Johanne and secondarily by the ABC team. everyone needs to listen to this interchange very carefully b/c Johanne made several great points on the fly in showing that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the vulnerabilities btwn OP_RETURN proposals and GROUP in redeeming shares of a company. if the company refuses to redeem, end of story. it doesn't matter that GROUP tokens might be sold on to someone else. in fact, it's a problem in perpetuating a bagholding scheme IF somehow the shares were able to retain value, which in either case would be highly questionable. what shocked me most though was the retort from the BU team claiming that the same problem exists for cryptocurrencies such as BCH and BTC! they tried to claim that if a gvt blacklisted your BCH or BTC then you would not be able to sell it on, for example, at an exchange. even if that might be true for exchanges within that gvts jurisdiction, the reason gvts can't and won't do that with either BCH or BTC is that there are literally several dozen other exchanges around the world that WILL accept your coins. and if they don't, then you could still sell those to individuals in p2p exchange or over localbitcoins most likely at a price unaffected by that black listing.
and this is why that blacklisting company that tried to get started several years ago never succeeded. this is the power of decentralization of a dumb token that has value in and of itself not dependent on a centralized company that no such company issuing shares on either GROUP or OP_RETURN can ever achieve. in contrast to shares, your coins will be forever redeemable even if blacklisted as there is someone somwhere that will take them as they will always have value on their own merits. this is totally different than trying to redeem shares thru a specific centralized company no matter how many times you might successfully sell the tokens on to other bagholders. at the end of the chain of transfers there is one, and only one, company that will still know how to blacklist those shares as they can follow the bagholding tx trail easily, assuming that can even happen since the value will most likely be zero. again, this is distinctly different from BCH or BTC which also, after several tx's, get split, merged, and diluted beyond recognition re-establishing fungibility.

thus, the unfortunate conclusion is there is no special redeemable properties conferred onto a token by GROUP. and b/c it requires a complex unproven protocol change and could allow other tokens to compete as a currency with BCH, to me, it's not even a consideration.

 

[SPAZTEEQ]

What I am getting at in regard to miners is if a chainsplit looms, make sure all the players who matter see it coming. Do miners rule? or not?

 

[awemany]

@cypherdoc: I hear you on the complexity argument. IMO we should be very careful to not prematurely change the chain and validation structure in ways that would prevent us from scaling properly in the long term. I can't see at all how e.g. OP_DATASIGVERIFY would, so I am much more comfortable with that kind of change compared to group tokens.

I also agree with you on the issuer determining the token value - and that if the issuer folds or disappears or whatever, the tokens being pretty much worthless.

Which - to me - also calls into question the whole idea of 'decentralized tokens'. There's always some central authority, and yes this makes them very different from BCH.

But I hope we can find some good mode to discuss this, because there seems to be a strong disagreement in the community on the issue of 'what is the value of miner validated tokens'.

I've had respectful discussions with @theZerg on this but we always kind of agreed to disagree in the end. Maybe someone can at one point make a good argument here that will convince the respective other side.

Finally, I like to say that I disagree with you, however, on tokens endangering the value of BCH. It is exactly because they are centralized that they'll never fill BCH's spot. Your observation that the issuer is a centralized part of any token should IMO bring you to the same conclusion. And I also think there's no dilution, rather the opposite - any tokens on top of BCH need BCH to run and will further grow the ecosystem.

I hope that a good implementation of Jonald Fyookball's token approach will show that this can become 'as good as an SPV wallet for tokens', also on cellphones and similar small devices.

Because I don't think any user really cares whether he has to download and store megabytes of data - and if it is hidden behind a flashy GUI, s/he will be happy. If Electron Cash stores all the token info in the background for me and that means I get a couple megabytes or even dozens or hundreds more in the .electron-cash folder - so what.

 

[cypherdoc]

how do i short Ethereum?

i'm sorry but /u/insette is making the same mistake i outlined above re: GROUP. read the comments from /u/edoera carefully. he and his comments are the real gems in this interaction:

[doublepost=1532103165,1532102236][/doublepost]@awemany

>IMO we should be very careful to not prematurely change the chain and validation structure in ways that would prevent us from scaling properly in the long term.

can we be sure that scaling would be the only potential detrimental effect?

>Finally, I like to say that I disagree with you, however, on tokens endangering the value of BCH. It is exactly because they are centralized that they'll never fill BCH's spot. Your observation that the issuer is a centralized part of any token should IMO bring you to the same conclusion. And I also think there's no dilution, rather the opposite - any tokens on top of BCH need BCH to run and will further grow the ecosystem.

it can damage the value of BCH by merely introducing technical debt and or bugs. and if you agree that the value of GROUP tokens are still dependent on centralized issuers, then why have them validated in the first place? now, i agree the dilution argument is more complex. let's say an issuer fails to redeem, the token value plunges, the issuer goes out of biz, yet the tokens are still there that the network still has to carry. they're now dumb tokens too, just like BCH coins. will the market paradoxically begin trading them at a recovered value as currency? they're PoW secured afterall. i don't know the answer to this but if that happens, wouldn't that be dilutional to BCH? i'm sincerely asking.

>I hope that a good implementation of Jonald Fyookball's token approach will show that this can become 'as good as an SPV wallet for tokens', also on cellphones and similar small devices.

my bet is SLP gets the first run at this token thing and evolve to be the de facto token platform. i suppose Wormhole has a chance simply b/c it was devved by the miners. but 3 tokens to run doesn't sound viable.
[doublepost=1532103593][/doublepost]

What I am getting at in regard to miners is if a chainsplit looms, make sure all the players who matter see it coming. Do miners rule? or not?

miners don't rule but surely they are a critical part of the system that everyone needs to pay attention to as well as support via the big block strategy. please read the WP that states 17x that miners have the financial incentive to stay honest within the system's ruleset so as to not destroy the value of their coins; which was and continues to be established by all the other actors in the system, such as users, merchants, payment processors, speculators, etc. when you say "rule", that would imply they could throw their weight around in direct opposition to the community's interest with impunity. it doesn't work like that.

 

[cypherdoc]

when i first started this thread back in 2011, @Melbustus and i agreed that we would give Bitcoin a 10y runway to take off, pegging off a similar timeframe with the Web. we said on or about 2020. hang onto your hats (coin) folks, b/c 2020 is right around the corner:

According to a February study, small business owners think cryptocurrency payments will become a reality on the high street within two years.

https://coinjournal.net/samsung-accepts-crypto-payments-in-three-baltic-states/

 

[cypherdoc]

ok, how about this purposeful attack:

i create a fixed 21M miniBCH tokens ostensibly tied to concert tickets. i get them inserted into the blockchain via GROUP. i immediately default on the redeemability of the tickets, as i was never intending to sell tickets in the first place. the price goes to zero and i go supposedly go out of biz. the way Oldenburg was talking, GROUP gives these tokens all the same rights and properties as the native BCH "token". as such, they have now become dumb tokens too, just like BCH, available to be speculated upon, traded, and used as an additional currency supply. their value inexplicably revives and gains a life of their own b/c miners secure them via PoW and speculators speculate. i've now just inflated the money supply by 2x. rinse and repeat a thousand times to swamp the original 21M BCH.

why doesn't this work to destroy Bitcoin's SOV? the only way to reverse this process is via another hard fork to extricate the GROUP code and the miniBCH tokens. from the looks of it, that wouldn't be easy, not only from a technical standpoint but from a political standpoint as miniBCH investors (and their gvt operatives) will scream bloody murder. and the hit to the credibility of the entire BCH development process and community would be dire.
[doublepost=1532110561,1532109846][/doublepost]If you don't think this type of wild speculation can happen just think back to when Testnet coins gained value inexplicably. Devs had to intervene in a way I can't remember to stop this craziness.

 

[witly]

@cypherdoc Unfortunately coppay only accepts "payments in Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Litecoin, Dash, NEM, and Steem".

 

[freetrader]

CopPay has indicated they plan to support Bitcoin Cash in future.

 

[bitsko]

when i first started this thread back in 2011, @Melbustus and i agreed that we would give Bitcoin a 10y runway to take off, pegging off a similar timeframe with the Web. we said on or about 2020. hang onto your hats (coin) folks, b/c 2020 is right around the corner:

According to a February study, small business owners think cryptocurrency payments will become a reality on the high street within two years.

https://coinjournal.net/samsung-accepts-crypto-payments-in-three-baltic-states/

coming in after that and not following the thread on bitcointalk (only since bitco.in), ive been saying 2020 or bust this past year or so...

one bubble(or not) away. BCH bet upside being an extra 10x or so...

'bust' to me is governments or neutered money such as BTC achieving more success that BCH. ill likely divest or diversify by then.

 

[79b79aa8]

how do i short Ethereum?

on bitmex. if you are in the US you'll need a VPN.

 

[molecular]

Interesting point.

How about fixing that in BCH, then we have great marketing possibilities: "Bitcoin Cash: for payments AND store of value, Bitcoin Core: for storing value (until 2038)"