Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

Devs had to intervene in a way I can't remember to stop this craziness.

They basically wiped out all the balances.. I think this required a new genesis block. I guess, theoretically, the original testnet could just have forked to preserve itself.

 

[lunar]

These Boys get it.

Bitcoin: A Decentralized Complex Social Network


And a link to their yours article.
https://www.yours.org/content/bitcoin--a--decentralized--complex-social-network-0de889501376

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[jessquit]

I'll say one thing about all these tokenization proposals: they have been uniquely effective at getting this group to stop discussing ways to penetrate the market for cash-like use cases.

 

[Bagatell]

Tokens are a cash-like use case, aren't they?

 

[jessquit]

@Bagatell tokens are not cashlike use cases. Cashlike use cases are things like buying a sandwich and paying with dollar bills. Tokens are like taking pennies and punching out the middle to turn them into carwash tokens worth a $5 car wash. Not exactly a good analogy but you get the point. When you're trading around Token XYZ what you're not doing is transacting in BCH.

Memo.cash is another non-cashlike use case. You're using the system to pay to write stuff into the blockchain, and BCH is like "gas" for the application.

The system is permissionless, so what we do is build and observe. Some people have argued that the path to "buying sandwiches with BCH" begins with "buying ICO tokens with BCH" or "buying memo.cash posts with BCH." Now these might be perfectly good use cases. But they aren't actually cashlike use cases.

So we build and observe....

 

[Norway]

@jessquit
Tokens are the reason for Ethereum's success and why shops accept ETH as payments.

Bitcoin (BCH) is losing network effect by not implementing the GROUP proposal. The other token proposals are just as secure as crypto currencies without mining. We know what happened to them.

 

[lunar]

While we're on the subject of permisionless non cash like use-cases. I posted a couple of things last year, when I got the first whiff of this idea.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-995#post-40754
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-996#post-40862

This is from Decentralized 2017 and Konstantinos Sgantzos talk on - Proof: Bitcoin is in essence an artificial intelligent machine.

The basic principle is combining a genetic algorithm as a self writing program directed onto the uxto set, as a state machine for permanent, iterative storage. In principle, it can then evolve, adapt or be directed by external data sources. Theoretically becoming the worlds first decentralized AI.
​

hold on for the second question... we're gunna need bigger blocks - Core killed the golden goose.​

The paper can be found here.​

Implementing A Church–Turing–Deutsch Principle Machine on a Blockchain

RAY KURZWEIL Here we come.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Bitcoin (BCH) is losing network effect by not implementing the GROUP proposal.

I fail to understand this tribe mentality in regards to the known token proposals. You can build tokens on BCH as it is now (see at what the Electron guys do) and apparently the issue isn't as important as some people want it to look like or we would see more development in this area.

Personally I don't think that implementing, GROUP, OP_GROUP or any other proposal would kill BCH so I don't really care. But I think the BCH community could relax a little.

(TBH, If the Electron guys manage to build a solid token system on top of BCH and ship their client with support for that, I am pretty sure that this will become the "BCH token system". And I do not see why it shouldn't work good enough.)

Pretty much the same goes for this pre-consensus tempest in a teapot.. Relax and wait who develops the first, good enough system. And if nobody does or the miners are not interested in it, so be it. I do not pay any devs.

Oh and btw, fuck nchain and CSW with their patent bullship. Bunch of statist assholes.

 

[Bagatell]

tokens are not cashlike use cases.

When this all kicked off I remember comparing a multi use Bitcoin to swiss army knives and amphibious cars. I still think it only needs to be be p2p cash to succeed but in the computer world multiple uses are mandatory.
and as you say "So we build and observe...."

 

[Norway]

I fail to understand this tribe mentality in regards to the known token proposals. You can build tokens on BCH as it is now (see at what the Electron guys do) and apparently the issue isn't as important as some people want it to look like or we would see more development in this area.

C'mon @satoshis_sockpuppet, please don't accuse me of tribalism. I'm an investor, and I want bitcoin (BCH) to become the global money.

The huge difference between GROUP tokens and other tokens, is that GROUP tokens are both permissionless and decentralized. I want my future stocks and concert tickets to be like that.

The OP_RETURN-based tokens are based on nodes/servers that don't mine. They work today, like any central or distributed database usually do. But they can easily be attacked and taken down.

Ethereum is eating our lunch in front of our eyes, and is the biggest threat to BCH today in my opinion.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Norway

what's wrong with my argument here?: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1209#post-75219

 

[Bagatell]

@Norway

Ethereum is growing bloated and dyspeptic. I don't expect the patient to survive the move to POS.

 

[Norway]

I hope people have read the GROUP proposal, it shows the possibilities and potential it has. I'll repost it here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X-yrqBJNj6oGPku49krZqTMGNNEWnUJBRFjX7fJXvTs/edit

@cypherdoc
You fail to see the potential of tokens on the BCH blockchain, even after Ethereum have proved that it's a huge market, and it's possibly a lot bigger than the initial ICO scams.

You buy into Joannes' binary view of how a token issuer can and will control every transaction of the token.

Why do you think bearer shares was invented, and why do you think many governments fight against them?
[doublepost=1532447286][/doublepost]

Ethereum is growing bloated and dyspeptic. I don't expect the patient to survive the move to POS.

I hope they move to POS, but maybe they don't. And maybe they can scale on chain, just like BCH.
[doublepost=1532447733,1532447107][/doublepost]Somone (Bitkan?) translated my article about pricing transactions better to chinese!

http://www.okz.com/news/114219

EDIT: Original article here: https://www.yours.org/content/utxo-growth--solved-934c8a380558

 

[cypherdoc]

@Norway

>You fail to see the potential of tokens on the BCH blockchain, even after Ethereum have proved that it's a huge market, and it's possibly a lot bigger than the initial ICO scams.

i think by next year we'll see that we'll be saying that "Ethereum WAS a huge market for ICO scams". i do believe the SEC is about to drop a huge bomb on the ICO market classifying them as securities causing most to go out of biz. and i don't believe Eth is money to begin with and hardly see anyone using Ether as cash, if at all. thus, i don't really see any of it's garbage being inserted into the BCH protocol, as the evidence of it's utility is not there.

>You buy into Joannes' binary view of how a token issuer can and will control every transaction of the token.

i don't disagree that issuers on op return will control every tx, they will. the advantage of op return is that tokens can be tried without risking the protocol itself. and given the promise of making SPV workable, i'm willing to give them a chance since there seems to be interest in these token proposals by devs mostly.

i don't buy into Johanne's argument; his argument is a fact; that GROUP provides no advantage over OP RETURN in redeeming token shares. issuers are centralized by their very nature and decentralizing the tokens for trading purposes is actually a bad thing in perpetuating the bagholding in case of an issuer default.

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
So you "buy into" Joannes' binary arguments when you say they are facts. You agree with him. It's just a matter of words.

I see the war against bearer shares as the same as the war against cash. The governments want to control everything.

The GROUP proposal is suggesting a different future than the current status quo. A more free future, where people choose to invest in what they want without the government protecting/fucking them.

You should come and visit my house in the woods

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

The OP_RETURN-based tokens are based on nodes/servers that don't mine. They work today, like any central or distributed database usually do. But they can easily be attacked and taken down.

The OP_RETURN based token schemes are as decentralized as needed / possible.

With every scheme that has been proposed, the issuer can always ignore the tokens later on. If IBM issued IBM-Tokens on the BCH-chain representing a stock of their company you are bound to either the laws or IBM's reputation that the token actually represents something. That doesn't change with using GROUP or whatever "onchain" solution.

Tokens must have a fixed / known (and observable) issuance and should be transferable without any 3rd party. That is possible with the proposed OP_RETURN schemes.

Anything else is onchain-fetishism imho. But I do not accuse anybody here of being ill-willed. And I could live with either solution. But I hope and guess, that the issue is over after on of the OP_RETURN based schemes gains traction. And everybody will be happy afterwards.

And I think both the token stuff and the preconsensus stuff is blown out of proportion by trolls and enemies of BCH. Not in this forum and not the "well known" people, I can understand that people have different views, but on reddit I suspect a campaign to stir up some trouble.

 

[Norway]

The OP_RETURN based token schemes are as decentralized as needed / possible.

With every scheme that has been proposed, the issuer can always ignore the tokens later on. If IBM issued IBM-Tokens on the BCH-chain representing a stock of their company you are bound to either the laws or IBM's reputation that the token actually represents something. That doesn't change with using GROUP or whatever "onchain" solution.

Tokens must have a fixed / known (and observable) issuance and should be transferable without any 3rd party. That is possible with the proposed OP_RETURN schemes.

Anything else is onchain-fetishism imho. But I do not accuse anybody here of being ill-willed. And I could live with either solution. But I hope and guess, that the issue is over after on of the OP_RETURN based schemes gains traction. And everybody will be happy afterwards.

And I think both the token stuff and the preconsensus stuff is blown out of proportion by trolls and enemies of BCH. Not in this forum and not the "well known" people, I can understand that people have different views, but on reddit I suspect a campaign to stir up some trouble.

The OP_RETURN token schemes are just as vulnerable as a digital coin based on the same principles.

It can work (computers and databases work). But they are just as weak to government interventions as any distributed database is.

Let's give stocks the same super power of freedom that bitcoin provides for money.

This is a matter of philosophy. I am surprised to hear @cypherdoc using SEC, his slave master, as a reason to hold free trading back. I don't think he has thought this through. He is just trying to be "realistic". In this case, "realistic" means keeping the status quo.

Free stocks is about the same as free money. (Not free as in "You don't have to pay for it", lol.)
[doublepost=1532457209][/doublepost]@theZerg is providing the tools. I want to fight for what those tools can bring to the world. And for gods sake, please read his proposal I linked to.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

It can work (computers and databases work). But they are just as weak to government interventions as any distributed database is.

How can a government stop the distribution of these tokens? (Different to GROUP-tokens).

They are always bound to something outside of the blockchain and thus "censorable". Let's say company X issues shares for their company using any blockchain token solution.
Now the government steps in and declares all these tokens worthless (disconnects them from the real world value so to say). What would be the difference between the "OP_RETURN" and the "GROUP" tokens?
[doublepost=1532457510][/doublepost]

Free stocks is about the same as free money. (Not free as in "You don't have to pay for it", lol.)

I agree, that having the option to freely trade stocks would be really awesome and a great thing to happen.

But you can't create stocks that behave like Bitcoin. There is a huge difference between fiat money, which isn't connected to any really existing property, and stocks / tokens. And you can run circles, do a handstand, create complicated scripts.. In the end, a company's stocks could be declared illegal by a government, regardless of the used scheme.

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

How can a government stop the distribution of these tokens? (Different to GROUP-tokens).

They can't. I didn't say that. But they can stop a distributed database. Big difference.

I agree, that having the option to freely trade stocks would be really awesome and a great thing to happen.

Yeah!

But you can't create stocks that behave like Bitcoin. There is a huge difference between fiat money, which isn't connected to any really existing property, and stocks / tokens. And you can run circles, do a handstand, create complicated scripts.. In the end, a company's stocks could be declared illegal by a government, regardless of the used scheme.

This is the Overton Window the SEC and financial regulators around the world create.

Stocks on GROUP can work as bearer shares on steroids.

You don't have to hold the physical paper and engage in Miami Vice-style trades where both traders have five guys with UZI's and exchange suitcases.

You can do atomic swaps of the digital bearer shares for BCH. No exchange needed, just digital contact between the two parties. (Read @theZerg 's GROUP proposal linked above.)
Correction, no contact needed. Just an anonymous Memo.cash post is all that is needed to set up a trade. The seller or buyer can sign half of the atomic trade.

AND, opposed to physical bearer shares, you can VOTE on the direction of the company anonymous from the other side of the planet, just like we vote on BUIPs. No need to show up at a place with the paper bearer share.

I don't think everybody knows this, but bearer shares are under the same crackdown as physical cash, for the same reasons and by the same actors. Google if in doubt.
[doublepost=1532462289,1532461668][/doublepost]@theZerg is not a man who screams loud and wave his arms. So you have to discover what he's up to by reading his low-key articles. Repeting myself (screaming and waving my arms, lol):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X-yrqBJNj6oGPku49krZqTMGNNEWnUJBRFjX7fJXvTs/edit#heading=h.sn65kz74jmuf