Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
and it's not so much that we all have something against LN or SC's. it's that small blockheads are competing dishonestly and maliciously by not opening up the Bitcoin mainchain to freely compete head to head with LN/SC's. if they did that and those offchain solns won, i'd be fine with that. but no, they're fearful that they couldn't/wouldn't win and use stupid arguments like, "omg, we'll grow so big that we'll destroy ourselves!"

lol.
 

Lee Adams

Member
Dec 23, 2015
89
74
Currently the code and BIP both embrace BIP9. Sure, these are draft, but if they track back from 95% that then they will not have a leg to stand on. Soft forks CAN be actively rejected by the users, exchanges, etc. if core do ridiculous hypocritical things.

Yes I understand the concerns littered throughout this thread, but I have still shifted my position from mildly against to mildly in favour.

Blockstream was always going to happen in some form, which is why I'm glad the bitcoin experiment seems to be splitting into multiple teams (now with veto powers). Micro-transactions (which seem to be going forward in the form of LN) are one of the things that attracted me to bitcoin in the first place.

However I do feel that this forum is becoming an echo chamber given @johnyj clearly nonsense statement that 'only Pieter understands segwit' got so many likes. It's like the false notion that only 3 physicists understood Einstein's theories. Developers aren't stupid.... even core developers. ;)
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
"However I do feel that this forum is becoming an echo chamber given @johnyj clearly nonsense statement that 'only Pieter understands segwit' got so many likes."

That statement can also be interpreted as a burn on segwit for being unnecessarily complex (and not that other developers are actually incapable of understanding it).

That reminds me of joke that the ObamaCare Bill was so complex and long that "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"...
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
The difficult part is to write that other system. And is has to be trusted, just like bitcoin. (Lightning Network will never ride trust free on the back of bitcoin. You need to trust the Lightning Network on it's own merits/concept/code.)
Blockstream's trick and the fallacy for now is that most supporters of LN and SC fall victim to believing somehow a Bitcoin 2.0 system can be designed to use/extend Bitcoin's PoW security at no cost.

It seems to me at some point in bitcoin's Adoption Cycle once we've crossed well into the Early Majority stage that there will be Safety in Numbers, it's after bitcoin's adoption has peeked that I think it may be safe and possible to leverage bitcoin's trust free model for such ideas like LN or SC.

For now all these Bitcoin 2.0 technologies (i.e. Money 3.0 premature fluff) are indirectly an attack on the fundamental technology of Money 2.0, (ie. Bitcoin 1.0) they trying to make money do things that should otherwise incur a market based evaluation, the expanding "subjective utility" of these ideas degrade the utility of a good a money all actors in the economy can trust.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Norway, you almost spilled that piña colada. :p:)(y);)

It's actually that fundamental belief that raises my red flag every time, it's like a perpetual motion machine and physics of energy that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

Whenever a risk free, trustless solution to a problem or a perpetual economic energy generator is presented with only upside potential there is a system that's just not yet understood.

Maxwell's Joker - get out of jail card to date has been: this is a technical issue and the economics of the matter aren't relevant.
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I think it's trivial to write the transfer of bitcoin to a second layer with bitcoin deposits as collateral. No need to change the bitcoin code.

A second layer should probably be incentified by fees. You know, a distributed system, like bitcoin, but without mining an issuance of new tokens. Just like bitcoin miners after the year 21??.

But if you can make that system, why not just make bitcoin do the same?


CHEEEEERS BUDDYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

go1111111

Active Member
How can there be any tx fees on a 2wp sidechain? No additional coins can be made, as explained above, or else there will be more sidecoins than locked BTC and a race for the exits.
Tx fees wouldn't come from new coins though, they'd come from coins that were already moved. Suppose people transfer 100 BTC to the sidechain and start trading coins around with themselves but paying tx fees. The fees get collected by the miners, so the effect is the 100 BTC has been redistributed so that now the miners have, say 2 BTC and everyone else has 98 BTC. Still 100 total BTC on the sidechain and users and miners can withdraw as normal.

If you do allow inflation where you lock 1 BTC to get 1 sidecoin, then a year later you can only get back 0.99 BTC for that sidecoin, that's by definition not a 2wp.
I guess it's a matter of definition, but to me the important property of a 2wp is that you know with certainty that you can trade in your sidecoins for a certain amount of bitcoins, and this trade is guaranteed by the protocol -- it doesn't depend on the market rate. Whether the fixed ratio is 1:1 or 101:100 when you trade them in doesn't fundamentally change the benefit of that type of peg.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I've got it. I'm beginning to realize what the problem with Bitcoin is. It's just too simple.

We need to complicate it. Much more. Fill up those versionbits, a la SegWit.
Johnson Lau has an idea that could help.

https://github.com/jl2012/bips/blob/mast/bip-mast.mediawiki

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4cx6el/mast_a_new_bip_based_on_segwit_uses_a_merkle_tree/


Spaghetti alla puttanesca

Photo: Rainer Zenz - Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=718647
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@AdrianX
BTW. You were talking about the conservation of energy, applied in the first law of thermodynamics ;)
[doublepost=1459539594][/doublepost]@freetrader
Yes! Lets make it bloatware Windows style!
(Windows do the same for me today, as it did in 1995: I can start a program. I can delete file. I can copy a file. In a graphic window style environment. Stolen from Apple.)
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@AdrianX
Wow, did you study physics too? (At a high level?) You seem to have that abillity to look at the system from a distance.
No I'm a generalist if anything a life long learner. I happen to do design for an extremely broad number of industries with a sympathy for environmental impact and efficiency and all systems seem to inevitably be a part of some other system ultimately they're all governed or manipulated by our fiat system which is why I see bitcoin as such an amazing opportunity.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@AdrianX
Well it seems like you are a smart guy who can look at a problem in an independant and abstract way. I like that! I have absolutly no fucking idea of what your work is, based on what you wrote, but it ends with bitcoin as an amazing opportunity. And I will drink to that. Cheeeers!
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Tx fees wouldn't come from new coins though, they'd come from coins that were already moved. Suppose people transfer 100 BTC to the sidechain and start trading coins around with themselves but paying tx fees. The fees get collected by the miners, so the effect is the 100 BTC has been redistributed so that now the miners have, say 2 BTC and everyone else has 98 BTC. Still 100 total BTC on the sidechain and users and miners can withdraw as normal.
iow - the sidechain gets to use Bitcoin Security in the peg free of charge. Say 100BTC is transferred in, and value exchanged back and forth - that is intended to generating fees for the sidechain miners but the fees are not necessarily paid to the Bitcoin miners, the 100BTC is then transferred back to the Bitcoin blockchain.

The net result is all the fees generated on the sidechain did not secure the Bitcoin network, they provided profit to the sidechain miners who had a security provided by the Bitcoin miners who didn't earn any of the fees - leaving bitcoin less secure.
[doublepost=1459541310][/doublepost]
@AdrianX
Well it seems like you are a smart guy who can look at a problem in an independant and abstract way. I like that! I have absolutly no fucking idea of what your work is, based on what you wrote, but it ends with bitcoin as an amazing opportunity. And I will drink to that. Cheeeers!
Cheeeers, it's my way of saying I draw pretty pictures like Buckminster Fuller ;)on a good day.

I had the unfortunate or fortunate experience (still undecided) of investing in bitcoin and now I'm metaphorically stuck in Ayn Rand's Galt's Gulch.
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
Poll:
Who denial of service-attacked the XT nodes, and the Classic nodes? (Your theory)

EDIT: Naaah, forget it. Just getting drunk and eager to fight.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Ok, I've been thinking about this the wrong way. We should just let Blockstream build up its LN to a $100B value. If that takes 5y, fine. In the meantime, we can all go over to @Norway's house (preferably on a beach!) and drink Pina coladas and beer.

Cuz at the end of that 5y, we, who hold lots of coins as the economic majority, can come back and launch a massive 3mo long spam attack on the network, which we know will work since we've been told, that blocks will always be nearly full and a robust fee market will be in place. By blocking closure of 3mo worth of payment channels, we can cause massive losses for those stuck, which hopefully will be all the small blockists. And it won't cost us much since we know the cost of a spam attack when blocks are full is trivial. Our coin value would skyrocket and then we could go back to @Norway's house for round 2;)

We win either way. It'll be beautiful.
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@cypherdoc
Yeah, the money application is soooo boring. The blockchain should be everything!
- The blockchain should controll my vacuum cleaner.
- The blockchain should be computer games.
- The blockchain should be all public records of cars, real estate and dildoes.
- The blockchain should be a record of my identity.
- The blockchain should hold my medical records.
- The blockchain should be the storage device for elections of politicians.

/SARCASM

I
FUCKING
HATE
PEOPLE
WHO
THINK
BLOCKCHAIN
IS
JUST
A
DATABASE!​
[doublepost=1459544737][/doublepost]@cypherdoc
You are welcome to my piña coladas :D

It's so fucking obvious. Blockstream is controlled by people who lose money when bitcoin go mainstream. They know they can't stop it. So, they stall.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Here's the thing. If Blockstream and small blockists want to turn this into a fiat money making game, we can play that game too. But in a much bigger and better way than they can. Why? Because we got most of the coin as the economic majority. If it comes down to it we can speculatively attack their LN & SC's all day long through the volatility game created by spamming almost full blocks and jacked mempools. And if that means making lotsa dollars instead of coin, I'm fine with that.

It'd be a shame though since we had a chance to change the world.
[doublepost=1459545357][/doublepost]You see, one of my main points in this thread going back to 2011, was that geeks fail to understand the mind of the speculator. One that doesn't think linearly. I'm willing to take bets that run at a loss for a time being just to cause confusion and volatility in a market if I can. It's called counter trend investing and doesn't always make sense. There's a clear opportunity there to disrupt things massively and inexpensively when running with full blocks and jacked mempools. And it will be irresistible when large values exist offchain and have tx's that are time dependent. Small blockheads can't get this through their thick skulls. Fine. If it means stripping dollars from their proprietary products, so be it.
 
Last edited: