Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 690. (Read 2032265 times)

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.


This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

Wow, you can describe all that in one line:  The price change will be proportional to the flow derivative.  

In other words, if BTC was moving (and would have continued to move) into the sidechain, the SC price when "broken" will rise.  If BTC is moving out of the sidechain the price will fall.

If you are still confused think about modelling it.  You would best model this by creating "value" as an immaterial quantity.  Each chain HAS a value (essentially a market cap, which is price * quantity), based on its usefulness.  If 2 chains are pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed in price, so quantity must change -- that is BTC is transmuted from one chain to another.  If 2 chains are not pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed by moving quantity so price must change.  This idea is fundamental; it applies to all commodities and products where you can transform one to another.




Cypherdoc your reasoning is completely flawed.  First of all, I know that you aren't an engineer, but you still you should be able to understand  that it CANT be ALL on the mainchain.  There are diametrically opposed requirements.  Like anonymity vs. public spending accountability.  Like handling vast numbers of txns per second vs. keeping all transactions forever.  Like blockchain spam vs. document timestamping.  There are plenty of things with diametrically opposed requirements in life, like sleeping (darkness) and reading a book (bright light); its unrealistic to imagine no 2 applications will emerge in a space which covers the entire concept of economic activity.

Why have all prior altcoins failed?  Simply because they're all essentially the same.  Different POW?  Come on, what end user cares?  Bitcoin 2.0 (assets)?  Colored coins is good enough, but the market is not mature enough for anyone to care right now.  

You may argue that there will never emerge a use case that is both compelling and that Bitcoin cannot handle.  Ok in that case there will be no sidechains, because Metcalf's law, etc and so the functionality will simply sit unused, and eventually be deprecated.  There is no drawback to this.

But if a use case DOES emerge, the only way to pull that value into Bitcoin is via sidechains -- because with a sidechain the Bitcoin 21million scarcity token can be applied to that use case.

You need to contemplate what you cannot contemplate, not make decisions only based on what you know.

So the ONLY way to get "all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table" is via sidechains.

Do you not recognize there are applications that demand more decentralization than federation/oracles/OT can provide?

Would you trust any lesser decentralized schemes with money functions of Bitcoin that are not supported by the mainchain?

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives