Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 695.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on November 17, 2014, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:42:23 PM

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.

Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases? I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case. Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.

If 2wp does not work then pegged SC does not work. If we are talking about pegged sidechains then 2wp MUST be working.

or maybe you want to talk about "pegged SC are not possible to create ?" => let's talk about why it is not possible to create functional 2wp SC

SC does not have any value -> until BTC are locked(escrowed) to fund this SC

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 17, 2014, 02:31:58 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

I think this is right. The same using other words: There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed. It also means that while the peg is intact, the holding preference would be with bitcoin in cases #1 and #2, and with scBTC in case #3. This will suppress the usage of scBTC #1 and #2, and may render them less and less liquid.

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Blockstream are attracting big clients, they want to run entire countries on SideChains, one way to grow it is to do a 1934 Gold Reserve Act and have everyone convert, they could even do it at favorable rates above current exchange rates. you cant dismiss #3 is the point I'm making.

I agree it is possible. And better than 100% reserve gold certificates, which may have had a higher value sometimes due to ease of transport. In the case of sidechains, we have provable reserves. So it is possible, but the quality of the sidechain must be really good.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Peter R on November 17, 2014, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:42:23 PM

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.

Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases? I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case. Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.

Sidechains introduce a huge marginal value-add by providing services which people need and cannot achieve on the main chain. My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that this will easily account for any increase in value associated with scBTC on an ecosystem level and some of the value will probably back-wash into Bitcoin itself in a big way.

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 02:21:18 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 17, 2014, 02:09:37 PM

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i don't necessarily agree with this. those ETF's and egold had to hold physical gold which "backs" those derivatives, whereas with SC's, BTC units are "transformed" into something totally different and then ride on less secure SC's. these speculative assets i think are worth less than the original BTC. if they get hacked or fail, those BTC are locked up forever, which i don't think necessarily translates into higher value for the rest of us still on MC. it could erode confidence.

Just because GLD is supposed to be backed by gold doesn't mean that it is. At least with bitcoin we can have cryptographic proof that side chains are backed by a certain amount of bitcoin. I see these gold derivatives as precedent for side chains just as gold was precedent for bitcoin.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:42:23 PM

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.

Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of the 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases? I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case. Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:42:23 PM

Quote from: Peter R on November 17, 2014, 02:32:44 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:03:31 PM

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?" The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger. Erdogan phrased this succinctly:

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.

that statement is a contradiction.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter R on November 17, 2014, 02:32:44 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:03:31 PM

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?" The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger. Erdogan phrased this succinctly:

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Peter R on November 17, 2014, 02:32:44 PM

But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property. In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3.

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Others would claim that a #3 is ultimately inevitable due to the ossification of Bitcoin.
At some point there would become a new SC that would be better in every way for everyone than Bitcoin and those that can exit do when then can do so.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 02:16:55 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 17, 2014, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 01:32:02 PM

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world. it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable. none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time. and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though. i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

[quote author=Peter R link=topic=68655.msg9573468#msg9573468 date=1416252764
But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property. In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3.

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

[/quote]

which brings up my problem with Blockstream.

they have a fiduciary duty aka financial incentive to make it happen regardless. and given their power positions in core dev, they may be able to make it happen.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 17, 2014, 02:07:10 PM

...
In one of the previous examples we had:

MC
| \
~~SC₁~~ SC₃
| /
SC₂

Where SC₁ had rogue devs/miners who inflated it with new assets or subverted the proofs so no SC₂ would convert back to SC₁ and so convertibility was lost.
Subsequently SC₃ is set up to restore convertibility because SC₂ had such utility that it kept going and new owner folks wanted to (somewhat) regain the convertibility aspects (including new issuance from SPV).

So now you have SC₂ with some BTC convertible back to MC and some not.

Some people who put their confidence in something (sc2) backed by a corrupt value backing (sc1) would lose. Sidechains are not some magic bullet which nullifies end-user stupidity and provider scammery. It just makes it possible for end-users to have an alternative to scammery if they want to put in the effort to do due dilligence. That alternative is found missing in almost every other financial instrument these days (except arguably physical PMs.)

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Odalv on November 17, 2014, 02:03:31 PM

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?" The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger. Erdogan phrased this succinctly:

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed.

The % of value that is stored on the sidechain is related to the scBTCs utility and network effects, as NewLiberty pointed out:

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 17, 2014, 02:07:10 PM

Value = convertibility + utility/network effects

So value is retained even if convertibility is closed.

But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property. In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3.

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Erdogan on November 17, 2014, 01:56:39 PM

I think this is right. The same using other words: There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed. It also means that while the peg is intact, the holding preference would be with bitcoin in cases #1 and #2, and with scBTC in case #3. This will suppress the usage of scBTC #1 and #2, and may render them less and less liquid.

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Blockstream are attracting big clients, they want to run entire countries on SideChains, one way to grow it is to do a 1934 Gold Reserve Act and have everyone convert, they could even do it at favorable rates above current exchange rates. you cant dismiss #3 is the point I'm making.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: sidhujag on November 17, 2014, 02:27:52 PM

Haven't heard anyone talk about it but on here.. so I don't consider that strong. A simple gui was needed from grandma that couldn't be done in 3 years of trying? Is that strong software development to you?

That you don't understand the problem domain is more a reflection on you than on OT.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 17, 2014, 01:10:01 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on November 17, 2014, 12:44:10 PM

Its sad but true that I think OT never really took off because it couldn't be used as a get rich scheme or P&D Sad

The OT client for grandma offered what a 500btc bounty or something crazy? But noone ever did it and I don't think those bounty awarders are still around to offer that kinda money for the nice client... otherwise I'd prob take a stab at it.

i think its going strong, its the best solution not a failed one.

Haven't heard anyone talk about it but on here.. so I don't consider that strong. A simple gui was needed from grandma that couldn't be done in 3 years of trying? Is that strong software development to you?

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 02:16:55 PM

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though. i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

This is why we want spvp -> to avoid human failures (like goxBTC).

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 17, 2014, 02:09:37 PM

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i don't necessarily agree with this. those ETF's and egold had to hold physical gold which "backs" those derivatives, whereas with SC's, BTC units are "transformed" into something totally different and then ride on less secure SC's. these speculative assets i think are worth less than the original BTC. if they get hacked or fail, those BTC are locked up forever, which i don't think necessarily translates into higher value for the rest of us still on MC. it could erode confidence.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 17, 2014, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 01:32:02 PM

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world. it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable. none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time. and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though. i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 17, 2014, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 01:32:02 PM

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world. it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable. none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time. and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

Gold distribution certainly changed from these, and became more centralized after leaving its current money uses behind.

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 01:32:02 PM

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world. it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable. none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time. and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 695. (Read 2032265 times)