Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 671. (Read 2032265 times)

yes.

and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money.  a digital gold standard so to speak.

But spin-off create a different ledger no?

Once transactions occur on the spun-off chain they don't consolidate on the other chain

I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.

"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?

Nice try, but that's not what I said. Bitcoin can survive, be useful, remain significantly better than the legacy financial system, and be valuable without your idealistic and unrealistic notion of "decentralization"; ie, the blocksize can be raised (at least up to some conservative interpretation of Nielsen's law) without killing bitcoin.

now you're rolling.

this is why i call it dilutional to Bitcoins current core function and value; that of money.

not only that, a SC for stock would introduce a time preference demand into the equation.  whereas BTC currency is supposed to be highly liquid and hold value, a stock is a long term investment and introduces risk which negates Bitcoins money function in aggregate.  i would argue that the non US world could care less about Bitcoin as a vehicle to invest in stocks, bonds, etc.  they only care about the SOV money function.  Americans only care about this too for the most part if you look at the stats (relatively low participation).

if we start diverting our attention away from the core problem for which Satoshi built Bitcoin, that as money, it just becomes another WoW trading platform game.

The first notion I agree with.

The second is irrelevant to the notion you are defending : that sidechains seperate the BTC unit from its blockchain. SPVproof is a different trust model for this mechanism and the fact that is it embedded in the protocol makes it potentially more secure and trustable. Yes federated models sit on top of the protocol by the separation is the same, only the way by which these units interoperate with the mainchain is different.

what do you drink in the morning? i want some of that 

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

here's another hint at Satoshi's original intentions in targeting the money function only.  he titled the original Bitcoin thread thusly:

"Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper."

yes, that's what i'm saying. the danger being that of building speculative asset trading directly into the protocol facilitated by a conflicted spvp.  i think it deprecates the money function we currently enjoy and introduces unacceptable risk.  and it certainly hasn't been proven to work.

and i am fine with things being built on top of Bitcoin as long as they bring value and compete fairly.

I don't understand what you mean by "additional layer of trust" in the context that you're using it.  What I addressed above was just a technical issue of whether an SPV node can verify the colored coin transfer, or whether a node that stores the full chain of colored transactions is required. 

The additional layer of trust is the fact that there's a counter party to these colored assets (the issuer of stocks, bonds, gold receipts, etc.) and there's no protocol that can remedy that. 

it sounds like you are desperate, in all the noise you may have missed it.

Peter-R put it most succinctly - my emphasis in bold:

that's what i am trying to do.

i would also submit that a ledger that carries speculative assets (anything other than BTC) will be different ledgers as they will be less secure as they aren't likely to be MM and will be priced in the market differently. 

+1

I have referred to this situation as the ledger being distributed on multiple chains instead of sitting on a single one.

This notion has potentially positive implications for the preservation of the ledger : a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

Are you mainly saying that the incentive structures for mining change in unpredictable ways if speculative assets are built straight into the money itself, rather than those assets simply being denominated in the money, like how the DOW is denominated in dollars? If that's what you're saying, I might agree. I'm not sure I see any problem with the incentives, but I also can't rule out a problem. The precautionary principle. This would extend to things like Counterparty, yes?

Wait, I'm pretty sure you said before that it's fine for things to be built on top of Bitcoin. So I'm confused about whether your argument here is just an extension of your "Bitcoin will only ever be used as money" thesis or whether it's specific to sidechains due to merge mining or for some other reason.

No, the meme in the video is why not run USD on the blockchain technology. They answer assumptions that the currency unit does not need to be native to the blockchain and can in fact be spared. That is far from what we are discussing


 

This seems pretty self-explanatory to me but if you insist, I can refer to several of my posts that do adress this :


So I understand you are also against federated sidechains? Because they also create this exact seperation you are against.
[/quote]

that's were I am at too.

How exactly are we defining the term "ledger" here? It seems that whatever percentage of what we now call the Bitcoin ledger that happens to be currently on a sidechain (assuming perfect 2wp forever and a perfectly secure SC) is simply being updated by that sidechain. That is, it is temporarily being maintained/updated by the sidechain platform rather than the Bitcoin platform, but the ledger itself ("who owns what") should conceptually be thought of as completely intact (insofar as the sidechain and 2wp remain sound, which was the starting assumption).

If you own 210,000 BTC, meaning 1% of the ledger (now known as the Bitcoin ledger, later to simply be known as "the ledger"), under these assumptions you continue to own 1% of the ledger no matter what sidechain you happen to be have your ledger stake being updated by at the moment.

Now certainly the "perfect 2wp" and "perfectly secure SC" assumptions are not at all a given. But insofar as they are, the ledger does seem to remain perfectly intact under such sidechains. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument against sidechains should focus on why these assumptions are not likely to be met (mining issues), which is a situation that will mess with the ledger (though only if people get duped into putting too much money into SCs).

And so transactions are verified through a process external to the Bitcoin system, right? Hence my statement that there is an additional layer of trust.

+1