in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted
I don't get the 1:1 thing. It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.
don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.
the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC. as if that makes a difference
but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example. anyone know?
and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.
I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?
That nomenclature is going to be new to them unless they read it here like you suggested to them, so their confusion is understandable.
They are likely just thinking of it in terms of just the Bitcoin block chain and the Truthcoin block chain with the convertible asset created by the locking of the bitcoin being the CC.
The nomenclature we are using here is a bit unusual. (we use MC for main chain, block stream uses "parent chain" and "child chain" or "sidechain").
The blockstream paper considers the sidechain as "also Bitcoin" which seems a bit disingenuous to me.
Generally we can think of the parent chain as being Bitcoin and the sidechain as one of many other blockchains. Of course, sidechain coins could be transferred between sidechains, not just to and from Bitcoin; however, since any coin originally moved from Bitcoin could be moved back, it would nonetheless remain a bitcoin.
I don't favor much of the language used in their paper. ("peg" being another example, but that is an old battle lost long ago)
This 1:1 peg being used to mean "a static conversion rate at any ratio" also seems bizarre in that it includes a 1:10 with 10:1 return rate?
