BTC vs. Other Cryptocurrency | Join dat fun!

[LiamLennon]

Back story. www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/180283-bitcoin-willy-report.html

I felt I needed to start a new thread so we could go through this "bitcoin" is the one, and there is no other need for other crypto currencies as bitcoin can do it all. Fire away and let's have a respectful discussion while breaking balls.

>LukeP > "Dude, multisigs are freaking awesome, and yes, you most definitely want to have 3rd parties involved with them. The 3rd party is basically an escrow service, but you as the wallet holder have two keys, and the escrow provider only holds one..."

Son I am disappoint. I was hoping we could get into the nitty gritty.

Why wouldn't you give hold the keys with your mom, wife, someone your trust 100%, bury them in the earth, tattoo them somewhere on yourself using ancient Egyptian crypto that only you would understand, etc. You don't need bitgo to do that.

Why would a multi sig provider only allow dictionary words? Lulz.

I am not going to bet a great amount of money as I could be wrong if the bankers get in. I will do 600$ though.
If the bankers do get in it could certainly have the market cap x volume but then the goal of BTC is dead. Why? Because a large % of bankers are are in it for $/BTC and control. The are not in it for a transparent open system that eliminates the need for them. They realize they cannot ignore it and are racing to get a piece for the reasons above.
BTC could actually still have the largest market cap as the guberment and the hedge funds guys come in (Satoshi rolls eyes)....and ya they are a coming.
They will do the same thing they have always done, line pockets, get on the board, get the NS@ guys coding as a "core" devs, etc.

When that happens and the guys that were in and believe in the big plan that BTC will be the greatest....they will realize they farked up and something else will come out and developers with morals in line with the original cyberpunk/Satoshi vision will jump ship. The only way to avoid this is for other crypto currencies having value and move fluidly to stay out of the trap. If not, tell me the solution please.

Yes, I have seen the video on multi sig quite some time ago.
Multi sig is not escrow. By calling it escrow you would need a money transferring lic. and I heard they are not cheap. I do know a guy trying to do multi sig and escrow tied into one and have it backed by a hedge fund....


Typically you hammer all this stuff out, but you took the easy route buddy. I know your heart is in the right place therefore I feel obliged to bring this up and hopefully consider other options that are not only money related.

Hit me back buddy, let's show these guys that there will be other options. Bitcoin is not the rev0lution, cryptocurrency is.
Big difference.

 

[r3p1v]

maybe it's because I'm half asleep, but idk most of what you're talking about. Are we talking about other coins vs bitcoins or this multisig thing.

Anyway, I'm convinced that 95% of the other coins are just a pump and dump from the start or just an outright scam. Example: AsiaCoin Post-Scam Analysis - Altcoin Herald

 

[CCarter]

This seems like a good enough place...

 

[Cigar]

I will create a bank that has the technology behind Bitcoin as its backbone and is thus fully transparent. With smart contracts and the blockchain we will change the world.

Prepare yourself.

 

[mattseh]

So the way a simple escrow service would work is:

LiamLennon is selling me a website for 2 BTC. We don't trust each other for whatever reason. LiamLennon creates a transaction that pays me the 2 bitcoin (as well as a transaction that returns the bitcoin to him), once it has two signatures. There are three signatures here: Liam's, mine, and the arbiter.

If the transaction goes fine, and he transfers the website to me, we both sign the transaction, and he gets paid, end of story. If there is a dispute, the arbiter gets involved, and makes a decision. Whichever decision is made, the arbiter signs the relevant transaction, which then goes into effect.

The arbiter will likely get paid for providing his service, with some making it their fulltime business. The payment to the arbiter could even be included in both transactions, so they get paid either way.

Some arbritration can be automatic (bots deciding), if the results are clear.

 

[lukep]

>LukeP > "Dude, multisigs are freaking awesome, and yes, you most definitely want to have 3rd parties involved with them. The 3rd party is basically an escrow service, but you as the wallet holder have two keys, and the escrow provider only holds one..."

Son I am disappoint. I was hoping we could get into the nitty gritty.

Typically you hammer all this stuff out, but you took the easy route buddy. I know your heart is in the right place therefore I feel obliged to bring this up and hopefully consider other options that are not only money related.

I only have myself to blame of course, but dammit, I just don't have time to keep up with all of these threads and long explanations that only 1-3 people read each day!

Yes, I shortened that explanation, so I'll try to expand here, but it's complicated stuff and the way to really learn this correctly is to simply download Satoshi's original whitepaper and read it over and over until you understand every word of it. Especially the parts where he talks about incentives.

There is no better education in cryptocurrency than a full understanding of that short document.

Yes, I have seen the video on multi sig quite some time ago.
Multi sig is not escrow.

This is true. I was simplifying, but I meant the word escrow in the pre-state-takeover sense of escrow, not the litigated and regulated sense.

Why wouldn't you give hold the keys with your mom, wife, someone your trust 100%, bury them in the earth, tattoo them somewhere on yourself using ancient Egyptian crypto that only you would understand, etc. You don't need bitgo to do that.

Why would a multi sig provider only allow dictionary words? Lulz.

Fast, rule-based transactions.

A multisig wallet becomes useful when the sender uses it as thoughtlessly and simply as he does a standard wallet... No extra thought used whatsoever in sending a payment somewhere, despite all the added safety of having a third party involved to watch your back.

These wallets are something that the new version of bitcoin supports natively, even in the basic wallet apps. Instead of generating a standard key pair (single-sig = Private key plus public key) like we're used to thinking about... It generates between 2 and 10 Private keys, of your choice, and one public key again.

The most standard multisig arrangement is 2-of-3, which means that 3 private keys are generated, and any 2 of those 3 keys can send the transaction.

Since it's your money in the wallet, you'd be a fool to give away more than 1 key, because the holder(s) of the two keys have everything they need to steal your money, at least if they conspire together or are the same person.

But at the same time, the whole point here is to protect your funds from attacks on your own computer. So you don't want to keep both of your keys on your machine at all, so hackers can't get at them and spend your funds.

The elegant solution here is for you to immediately and quickly print off one key as a backup, deleting all trace of that key from your machine within seconds, send one to a trusted party, and keep the 3rd on your machine like normal to initiate transfers with.

Got it so far? You have control and can spend your funds if you have to, but a hacker cannot get at them unless they also break into your house and find the right key you've printed off.

Now this only leaves us with the rules that govern usage of the key you've sent elsewhere.

If you sent that middle key to your mom, she's not going to be sitting there waiting at her PC to sign every transaction you want to purchase... Nor would you want her to know what you're buying. Whomever you give that key to isn't necessarily someone you need to trust at all in fact, because they'd also have to break into your computer to get a 2nd key and spend those funds.

What you need here is a service that INSTANTLY decides if your spending attempt is valid.

So far, there is no best way to know this; It'll be a secret recipe situation that sets wallet holders apart from each other. One provider may decide simply upon your IP address & amount (extremely unsafe IMO) and another one might have a whole list of criteria you must meet before they sign your transaction each time.

You'll basically be setting up a mini-profile in any of them that teaches them what kind of transactions you will make are valid, and which are fraudulent.

If a hacker took control of your machine and wanted to empty your wallet, then they'd likely send the full amount out while you're not at your desk... So for instance, your rules could be "no amounts over X in size, between the hours of 10pm-6am. That way your multisig service simply won't sign that transaction. It could also place 2FA on all transactions, so you get a SMS message to your phone to yea or nay all spending. -These settings will ideally be up to you and the hacker won't have a common ruleset to target.

I am not going to bet a great amount of money as I could be wrong if the bankers get in. I will do 600$ though.

Right now there is no need to put any money down or in escrow... If you could put one bitcoin away (currently $568!) in a paper wallet or something and forget about it for 2 years, then that's all you need to do. If I'm right, just send me that 1 coin in June 2016... Nothing more. What's so hard about that?

If the bankers do get in it could certainly have the market cap x volume but then the goal of BTC is dead. Why? Because a large % of bankers are are in it for $/BTC and control. The are not in it for a transparent open system that eliminates the need for them. They realize they cannot ignore it and are racing to get a piece for the reasons above.
BTC could actually still have the largest market cap as the guberment and the hedge funds guys come in (Satoshi rolls eyes)....and ya they are a coming.

I completely disagree on this part. Every penny that bankers put in raises the incentive for miners to mine bitcoin's blockchain. (Because their rewards are worth more as the price goes up.) That in turn raises security for the network, which is the opposite of what bankers really want, which is to destroy it.

This is precisely why they've held off this long from going all-in. I don't expect banks to really embrace it for years; only the non-traditional things like private hedge funds (Winklevoss) and non-banking finance channels.

This suits me perfectly; I wouldn't have it any other way. I want them dead and for new finance structures to rise, and it looks like I'm going to get my wish as the dollar sinks into oblivion.

They will do the same thing they have always done, line pockets, get on the board,

And how would any of this help them change a decentralized network? You have to choose to download the version of bitcoin you use! The old ways don't work on this platform.

get the NS@ guys coding as a "core" devs, etc.

They'd never let anyone but anarchists among their ranks... Core devs are all serious Satoshi adherents.

Anyway, they're running out of time to do so as the window for ANY changes to the bitcoin protocol (good or bad) will be closed in a year or two. It's simply too late.

let's show these guys that there will be other options. Bitcoin is not the rev0lution, cryptocurrency is. Big difference.

Bitcoin the currency is not the important part of the bitcoin revolution; Bitcoin the protocol/payment network and specifically its' Blockchain are the DeFacto revolution. That's the thing that is in a positive feedback loop that enjoys a huge network effect... It's the very thing that can't help but dominate the entire monetary supply of this planet given time. Nothing else has a chance to catch up with it, at all, period.

If you can figure out a way for the currency bitcoin to be separated from its' blockchain, then I'd consider that some other currency will take it up there... But even with sidechains I'm not convinced that this could happen... There needs to be a foundational value and bitcoin is doing an excellent job of that already.

 

[galacon]

STFU- PM OR SKYPE LUKEP IF YOU WANNA CHAT OR KEEP BITCOIN IN THE BITCOIN THREAD.

LIAM YOU FUCKING RETARD.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

STFU- PM OR SKYPE LUKEP IF YOU WANNA CHAT OR KEEP BITCOIN IN THE BITCOIN THREAD.

LIAM YOU FUCKING RETARD.

You're just jealous because we're not talking about Galacoin.

 

[LiamLennon]

maybe it's because I'm half asleep, but idk most of what you're talking about. Are we talking about other coins vs bitcoins or this multisig thing.

Anyway, I'm convinced that 95% of the other coins are just a pump and dump from the start or just an outright scam. Example: AsiaCoin Post-Scam Analysis - Altcoin Herald

You are correct 95% of them are pump and dump schemes.

Yes sorry for the info being all over the place...it is.
I felt it needed a new thread, but the original link to the original discussion is above.

I made this thread to have some constructive conversation on why bitcoin will not be the savior everyone is looking for. It is on the verge of becoming centralized and the board members, core dev's, etc. are not taking action that is in line with the original vision of bitcoin.

 

[LiamLennon]

I will create a bank that has the technology behind Bitcoin as its backbone and is thus fully transparent. With smart contracts and the blockchain we will change the world.

Prepare yourself.

Please do tell more.

 

[lukep]

I will create a bank that has the technology behind Bitcoin as its backbone and is thus fully transparent.

I was going to ignore this bad joke until LiamLennon thought you were being serious...

We'd love for them to put all that wealth into the bitcoin network/market cap. It'd be the best thing they can do for bitcoin.

"Making it fully transparent" doesn't mean that their efforts will extend outside their organization though. Those banks would never be able to get the Devs to change any core code.

It is on the verge of becoming centralized and the board members, core dev's, etc. are not taking action that is in line with the original vision of bitcoin.

It just isn't a real threat. Don't panic, bro!

 

[LiamLennon]

crypto wars

Originally Posted by LiamLennon
If the bankers do get in it could certainly have the market cap x volume but then the goal of BTC is dead. Why? Because a large % of bankers are are in it for $/BTC and control. The are not in it for a transparent open system that eliminates the need for them. They realize they cannot ignore it and are racing to get a piece for the reasons above.
BTC could actually still have the largest market cap as the guberment and the hedge funds guys come in (Satoshi rolls eyes)....and ya they are a coming.

@LukeP - Bring it buddy. This is an important topic and nobody wins or loses. We both get educated a bit more and keep the crypto revolution moving forward.

Lukep - “I completely disagree on this part. Every penny that bankers put in raises the incentive for miners to mine bitcoin's blockchain. (Because their rewards are worth more as the price goes up.) That in turn raises security for the network, which is the opposite of what bankers really want, which is to destroy it.

This is precisely why they've held off this long from going all-in. I don't expect banks to really embrace it for years; only the non-traditional things like private hedge funds (Winklevoss) and non-banking finance channels.

This suits me perfectly; I wouldn't have it any other way. I want them dead and for new finance structures to rise, and it looks like I'm going to get my wish as the dollar sinks into oblivion. “
@LukeP - You are wrong here buddy and the opposite is happening. You are right that miners are the backbone of the whole game. What is happening is the mining pools are getting out of hand as we see with Ghash.io right now.

How a hard fork can happen. Coutersy of Peter Todd a bitcoin core developer that just sold 50% of his coins due to this exact hardfork/mining/POW.
Peter Todd understands more than we do on how bitcoin works.
See about 5 minutes in -

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX0imwGHK0A"]Bitcoin 2014 conference - Interviewing Peter Todd - PART 1 - YouTube[/ame]


What could happen is a local gov't could tell Ghash you are no longer going to confirm blocks that have these blacklisted coins in them. Miners would then move to another pool/node but due the bitcoin code being sloppy code and doesn't scale easily (Bitcoin Developer Peter Todd's words), the amount of transactions/blocks cannot scale leaving the protocol open to a 51% attack.
This allows for a gub or other nefarious entity to 51% attack the network. They wouldn't be looking to double spend, or make money mining...they are looking for the hardfork, and thus fark it all up.
This is a big problem with POW and the lack of anonymity the bitcoin provides.


I agree with Kiopa_Matt on this one that you don't seem to address.
Kiopa_Matt - “The "rework the protocol" is a hard fork, which could potentially destroy bitcoin, or at the very least probably drop the price down to $50. Yes, it would get rid of those conducting the 51% attack, but it would also get rid of tons of legit sites / services, until they rework their code to work with the new protocol. It's the equivalent of PayPal changing their API overnight, and not allowing ANY API requests using the old format. Your site's checkout just simply stops working, until you change your code to make it work with the new API format.”


Lukep - “I don't expect banks to really embrace it for years”
“I want them dead and for new finance structures to rise, and it looks like I'm going to get my wish as the dollar sinks into oblivion.” I believe you don't want this, but bitcoin is not going to be the road to get there.
@lukep - Bro-mang, look around and wipe the sleepies out of your eyes. Have you heard of Circle, the new KYC regulations, the gub easily implementing blacklists for miners and wallet addresses.

Check out this article about Circle. I know it is all not true, but there is some truth in it - Bitcoin will be part of the global banking order, says Circle CEO — Tech News and Analysis
“Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.” “More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.”


POW mining is the problem and the door in and they are already in. Do you think the gub is not mining on several pools waiting for the right time to hard fork, implement new rules? The gub can't come through the front door but they know they have to get in.


Lukep - “Anyway, they're running out of time to do so as the window for ANY changes to the bitcoin protocol (good or bad) will be closed in a year or two. It's simply too late.”
Can you explain this more/send me a link. I have never heard of a date when no changes can be made to the protocol after that date. If that is true and the protocol can't move as times and needs change, it is weaker than I thought.


LukeP - “Bitcoin the protocol/payment network and specifically its' Blockchain are the DeFacto revolution. That's the thing that is in a positive feedback loop that enjoys a huge network effect...”
I agree the blockchainis the deal...being a payment kick ass payment tool, not so much.
Don't get me wrong I love bitcoin, but I am looking at a larger cryptocurrency ecosystem and know something better will come, especially with the financial guys are clawing at the door.

@lukep - Here's an interesting thing to check out...since BTC starting going down many non POW coins are holding steady at the same time or going up. Any thoughts on this?

@lukep - Bitcoin Core Development Falling Behind, Warns Key Contributor Mike Hearn
Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearn left the team, and has concerns.
Mike Hearn “There are occasional fixes and things submitted by other people, but the bulk of the work is being done by Gavin and those guys,” says Hearn. “I am a bit concerned by the fact that we don’t have a lot of people turning up and doing really serious, useful work on the core.”
“The fact that Gox was unaware of malleability entirely and then blamed the bitcoin software is perhaps a good example of a company that treated bitcoin as if it was a perfect black box, and became so disconnected they weren’t even reading the mailing lists or release notes,” he says.
“But the fact still remains that bitcoin is going through a revolution. Engineers used to rule the bitcoin world, but since then, the money has moved in, and agendas have changed.”



@lukep - There have been instances when the Counterparty guys needed a very reasonable request and they couldn't get the core dev's to do it. Even though XCP is working off of the BTC blockchain. Comments?

@Kiopa_Matt - http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/180283-bitcoin-willy-report.html#post2192594
I like this multi sig / security idea a lot Matt. Keep working on it!

@LukeP, You are vocal advocate of bitcoin, please consider the above points. Bitcoin is just the beginning. If I was a free market / freewill type guy then these things would concern me. If I was soley looking at bitcoin as a monetary instrument...then this wouldn't bother me, but bitcoin/cryptocurrency is much more than that to me personally.
The original intent of bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned is obviously going in another direction.

 

[vstin]

You deserve it because you talk about bitcoin

 

[LiamLennon]

^ uncle fucker ^

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XreePDi8k"](Uncle Fucker) [HD] South Park Film Cinema Scene - YouTube[/ame]

 

[lukep]

Jesus H Christ Liam, that's a freaking book full of questions!

I understand the feeling tho; I was right there 2-3 years ago. I pestered so many people with questions on bitcointalk that I threw away my first account any made a new one out of embarrassment.

I've seen nothing in all of that time to make me feel that the bitcoin blockchain is less than invincible.

I'll try to hit a few of these answers, but I am pretty busy this week... If my answers in this post still don't do it for you, I highly advise you to take my bet.

@LukeP - You are wrong here buddy and the opposite is happening. You are right that miners are the backbone of the whole game. What is happening is the mining pools are getting out of hand as we see with Ghash.io right now.

Take the bet then, I double-dog dare you.

I don't think pools are going to be a problem much longer. It's not that they're going away; it's that they'll get smarter. The same way that bitcoin's infrastructure is being added to is the way P2Pool will be grown; by adding more desirability to it. With any luck the majority of mining will be through P2Pool or something similar by the end of the year and we'll never worry about pool size again.

How a hard fork can happen. Coutersy of Peter Todd a bitcoin core developer that just sold 50% of his coins due to this exact hardfork/mining/POW.
Peter Todd understands more than we do on how bitcoin works.

I hate to sound conceited here, but I don't think he does understand bitcoin very well, at least not on the incentives level, and his higher-ups don't agree with him very much. For him to sell half his stake like that and tell ppl about it was very foolhardy and instantly discredits him in my mind.

What could happen is a local gov't could tell Ghash you are no longer going to confirm blocks

Make no mistake; if a single rumor became substantiated that a company like Ghash was taking orders from the enemy, EVERY miner would shun Ghash. The stink in the bitcoin news space would make them look worse than hitler and overnight their pool share would be 0%, with all future cex.io-related pools shunned as well.

The word Ghash would instantly become the bitcoiner word for "benedict arnold," just like "Gox" became the word for "huge incompetent theft."

that have these blacklisted coins in them.

This is an amusing thought too... Isn't it obvious that any coin the guv would want to 'blacklist' is very likely the exact same coin that would be laundered? With dark wallet out now and great dark web laundries now protecting millions of dollars a day in transactions to the 30+ black marketplaces, I don't think the attempts of guv agencies will be nearly as successful as you give them credit for.

I agree with Kiopa_Matt on this one that you don't seem to address.
Kiopa_Matt - “The "rework the protocol" is a hard fork, which could potentially destroy bitcoin, or at the very least probably drop the price down to $50. Yes, it would get rid of those conducting the 51% attack, but it would also get rid of tons of legit sites / services, until they rework their code to work with the new protocol. It's the equivalent of PayPal changing their API overnight, and not allowing ANY API requests using the old format. Your site's checkout just simply stops working, until you change your code to make it work with the new API format.”

This is just waaaay too much unnecessary backtracking... If someone, somehow found it profitable to and were able to do a massive fork for a double-spend, there would be no reason to revert the protocol back to an earlier version of bitcoin... The version and all its' API interface would go nowhere... What the core devs would have to do is reverse the clock on transactions, and go back to a point in time in the transaction log to before the split happened... Which would only be 30 minutes are so, given their record. (& Losing 30 minutes of transactions wouldn't hurt the price of bitcoin much at all.)

...But even if the attack was really awesome and they kept trying to fork the chain after each repair, then there are other tricks that the devs can try like banning the bad guys by IP, node, or machine name. They'd be totally identified and locked out, probably from the 1st repair.

If Ghash was suicidal to the extreme right now and decided to fork the chain to steal some coins, then the entire pool can be blacklisted from the blockchain by several different methods... All of which would be employed by the devs by the 2nd attempt, I'd think.

Yeah, that would tank the price down more, perhaps down to $100 at worst... But don't underestimate how many believers there are out there who would still drool over a $100 bitcoin, no matter how much attack it is under.

Lukep - “I don't expect banks to really embrace it for years”
“I want them dead and for new finance structures to rise, and it looks like I'm going to get my wish as the dollar sinks into oblivion.” I believe you don't want this, but bitcoin is not going to be the road to get there.
@lukep - Bro-mang, look around and wipe the sleepies out of your eyes. Have you heard of Circle, the new KYC regulations, the gub easily implementing blacklists for miners and wallet addresses.

Of course. Have you heard that there is nothing any imaginable authority can do to effect the code inside bitcoin?

Back in 2011 I was imagining all kinds of crazy scenarios, including complicated dual attacks by hacker elites and Seal team 6 at the same time... The bottom line is that it's just too late for them to actually change the code. They had their chance back in 2009-2010 but those dinosaurs just didn't conceive the danger in time to do something about it.

Here's a thought excersize for you; figure out a way for them to take down file sharing. Eradicate all torrent files from humanity. This is of course impossible as now hundreds of millions of people share files in every country on earth... But the concept, and even the protocol layer design, are exactly the same as bitcoins.

Bitcoin only seems an easier target to you because of the mining pools; but we'll have that little glitch ironed out this year I'd bet.

“Bitcoin will one day be subject to global treaties and central bank interventions, predicts Jeremy Allaire, one of the virtual currencies’ biggest backers.” “More remarkably, Allaire also suggested that national governments could one day establish treaties to regulate bitcoin mining cartels, and act as market makers for bitcoin through their central banks.”

I'm glad Mr. Allaire is promoting bitcoin of course; but he doesn't get it... Only anarchists really could "get it" in fact, and he's clearly no anarchist.

Anyone who tells you that bitcoin "needs regulation" is someone you can instantly and immediately never listen to again on the subject of bitcoin's future. They just don't understand the ecosystem it lives in nor it's fundamental drive... Might as well be talking about a product from a single corporation, completely centralized.

POW mining is the problem and the door in and they are already in.

I will never trust any mining that is not POW mining. The only problem here is public perception of POW mining.

POW x ^hashrate = Security. Accept no substitutes!

Do you think the gub is not mining on several pools waiting for the right time to hard fork, implement new rules? The gub can't come through the front door but they know they have to get in.

It doesn't matter if they are or not, but I see no reason to give them that much credit.

Lukep - “Anyway, they're running out of time to do so as the window for ANY changes to the bitcoin protocol (good or bad) will be closed in a year or two. It's simply too late.”
Can you explain this more/send me a link. I have never heard of a date when no changes can be made to the protocol after that date. If that is true and the protocol can't move as times and needs change, it is weaker than I thought.

False dichotomy.

All protocols 'dry up' or Ossify as they gain popularity. Could you imagine trying to change the core protocol of HTTP today? There are just too many people running it (Actually it is run multiple times for every single person on earth!) to make that many updates. It just can't happen.

That doesn't stop us from getting better web apps over http, does it?

Bitcoin is first and foremost protocol, exactly like http, and there will be HTMLs and PHPs and CSSs and XMLs and a thousand other layers over the top of bitcoin given time that extend its' frozen functionality.

 

[lukep]

Here's an interesting thing to check out...since BTC starting going down many non POW coins are holding steady at the same time or going up. Any thoughts on this?

Without even glancing at cryptsy I can say from past experience that this is a normal occurrence that happens to altcoins each time bitcoin gets any scary-sounding news; not because people suddenly believe in those altcoins more, but because those altcoins are far more Liquid to jump to than fiat.

Watch their trend over years... Almost all altcoins have 0% chance of sticking around in the long run. The few that will (and I don't even think Doge can be included in that small group) will do so because they have a unique quality that bitcoin can't absorb so they find some kind of userbase that needs them.

I doubt even litecoin can stay around for long; I'm thinking about coins tied to systems like safecoins are tied to maidsafe... Coins we're 'forced to put up with' because we want the functionality they are strapped to.

-This doesn't mean they'll ever have a chance of rivaling bitcoin though. The network effect bitcoin enjoys is more than adequate to make it the world reserve currency in the next decade, no matter how cool any newcomer coins are.

Mike Hearn: “There are occasional fixes and things submitted by other people, but the bulk of the work is being done by Gavin and those guys,” says Hearn. “I am a bit concerned by the fact that we don’t have a lot of people turning up and doing really serious, useful work on the core.”
“The fact that Gox was unaware of malleability entirely and then blamed the bitcoin software is perhaps a good example of a company that treated bitcoin as if it was a perfect black box, and became so disconnected they weren’t even reading the mailing lists or release notes,” he says.
“But the fact still remains that bitcoin is going through a revolution. Engineers used to rule the bitcoin world, but since then, the money has moved in, and agendas have changed.”

Mike is a real mixed bag. He's no anarchist, but he is an awesome coder and really does have a great view on where future technology is headed.

Sadly he's worked for Google for too long now to be impartial. I don't trust his judgement on anything to do with bitcoin's incentives/abilities to resist censorship... Although I was pretty excited about him back when he was new.

There have been instances when the Counterparty guys needed a very reasonable request and they couldn't get the core dev's to do it. Even though XCP is working off of the BTC blockchain.

Counterparty looks shiny and all, but it's attempt # 574,390,384 or so of making a decentralized exchange that doesn't allow fiat.

In other words, it's a complete & total waste of time. Why the devs would talk to them at all would be the only mystery here.

Everyone and their uncle have attempted a decentralized exchange, including me, but starting with Satoshi in fact! US law just makes it too perilous for the sellers of the fiat, no matter how the code is laid down.

Autonomous drones are likely what will enable decentralized exchanges to finally happen. Let's hope Quadcopter tech keeps growing at the rate it is now.

Bitcoin is just the beginning.

Exactly in the same way http was just the beginning of the internet.

If I was a free market / freewill type guy then these things would concern me.

I find that free market anarchists are the absolute most relaxed people involved in bitcoin. It's doing everything we think it would and nothing we don't.

The original intent of bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned is obviously going in another direction.

Disagree. Satoshi will keep surprising you over the years. -Not just one more time; likely dozens.

^ uncle fucker ^

Just do what I do; put anyone who posts such ugliness on Ignore, and perhaps throw in some red bricks as well. I just did.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Bitcoin Core Development Falling Behind, Warns Key Contributor Mike Hearn
Bitcoin core developer Mike Hearn left the team, and has concerns.
Mike Hearn “There are occasional fixes and things submitted by other people, but the bulk of the work is being done by Gavin and those guys,” says Hearn. “I am a bit concerned by the fact that we don’t have a lot of people turning up and doing really serious, useful work on the core.”

This one I wouldn't worry about. Bitcoin development itself is strong, but you are right, the core bitcoind development is rapidly falling behind what everyone else is doing. For example, it doesn't support BIP32, watch-only addresses, SPV nodes, listening on multiple ports with one process, and a host of other things.

I actually think it's already past the point of no return. There's lots of people like us who have outgrown bitcoind, implemented other solutions, and won't be switching back. This is good in a way though, because it forces people like me to gain an in-depth understanding of the protocol.

I don't view this as a bad thing though. Think of it as private sector taking over what was once public sector responsibility. Bad analogy, but best I can come up with. Let the core devel guys do what they do best -- handle the core network / protocol. The rest of the development community will handle the implementation side of things, and they're doing it well.

Well, except those client side encryption assholes. Man, that angers me. If you're reading a bitcoin blog sometime, and you see some Matt guy trashing these cunts, that will be me. You don't use a marketing gimmick to give user's a false sense of security and trust, while putting their funds at risk. God that's rude.

 

[Cigar]

I was going to ignore this bad joke until LiamLennon thought you were being serious...

We'd love for them to put all that wealth into the bitcoin network/market cap. It'd be the best thing they can do for bitcoin.

I was not joking.

 

[sephiroth]

just bought some crypt...lol. have a shit ton of nxt too.


discuss.

 

[LiamLennon]

sephiroth - "just bought some crypt...lol" lol, at least we can get a joke in here since reality isn't working out.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WILyWmT2A-Q"]A Tribe Called Quest - I Left My Wallet In El Segundo - YouTube[/ame]