Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 735. (Read 2032266 times)

They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins

Atomic swaps don't remove it, but they are a different sort of exchange entirely.  They are a sort of middle ground, in between in terms of time and autonomy.  
They are p2p and negotiated (rather than something I can do on my own via exchange or SPV)
They also have a time requirement, just not as long.  
They could be somewhat automated with a hosted order book, so they may end up being closer to the exchange model, which would give them a bit of a premium over the SPV method.
The SPV folks (presumably the slowest of these three, each are more or less unused) pay in time and save in money.

Atomic swaps don't involve BTC, they involve scBTC and an altcoin that also exists on the sidechain along with the scBTC.

Maybe I'm wrong but don't the atomic swaps described in the paper remove "the time incentive"?
Am I missing something obvious?

Maybe Blockstream will create first SPVproof accepting  SC and we all will have years to test it. There is not a reason to hurry.

sure, altcoins could bolt onto BTC by using a custom 2wp via a Federated server as you're fond of saying but that is much different than systematizing it via the SPV proof (changing the source code).  we've already discussed Federated servers are a centralized solution.

by making it systemic via the SPVproof you can expect all of the altcoins to bolt on immediately as it gives them opportunity they never had before.

I'm not sure You answered my question. ("What can we do to prevent this ?")
and how NOT validating  SPV proof can save us from this disaster => ignoring them will not allowing them to tap into BTC by the 2wp

altcoins are slowly being ground down by Bitcoin.  but it's taking longer than expected no doubt.  but it will happen w/o SC's.

my only pt is that i think it's disingenuous to suggest that SC's will kill altcoins when in fact they may do the opposite by allowing them to tap into BTC by the 2wp.  i know brg444 will try to say there is no reason for current Bitcoiner's to migrate into a Doge.  that may be true for Doge but there are 537 others that might have just enough attraction for current BTC holders to do so.  it's not the Sound Money Bitcoiner's i'm worried about; it's the speculators holding BTC that might migrate or even the ones who bought up around $1200 who think Bitcoin has failed them.  and there are future generations of Bitcoiners who may think differently.

i think the 2wp lets them get too close.

I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating  SPV proof can save us from this disaster)

You could call it a money substitute, except the delay is a problem, if it is substantial.

as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.  

right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models.  what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction.  really?  who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models?  let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! Bitcoiners won't use them as well. ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin.  they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper.  SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for SC adoption.

now, let' take it one step further.  if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away?  first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally worse for Bitcoin.  i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC.  let's use Dogecoin as an example.

let me very clear about the scenario/mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again.  i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge SC, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1.  there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know.  there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Dogecoin. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC<-->scBTC<-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with Truthcoin (TC).  the exact opposite of what SC devs expect.  i am NOT saying that Doge will be able to convert directly to BTC via the 2wp. it will only be exchangeable for scBTC.  consider that Doge already has its own security.  it already has it's own brand.  it already has its own attraction.  it already has its own followers.  and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin.  it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.  

furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow defecting users via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Dogecoin block rewards, and tx fees from both Dogecoin and scBTC.  

you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do.  i got news for you, they don't.  that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that.  in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those altcoins into the house next to our core engine business (MC) and sucking out valuable BTC.

Soo.. Gold up. Bitcoin up?

I can see 2 main types of SC
 - "permissionless transition between the two chains"
 - SC used as firewall

I like that even better than wrapping, perhaps locking would be an SPV in the direction away from the MC and unlocking would be moving back toward MC?
Wrapping and unwrapping would work, but locking is better (because it connotes that there is a key, which there is).  Wrapping is a coding term for reuse of code of a different type within another set of code, so it has that technical similarity, but likely most users won't be coders at some point (maybe now).

I'd suggest 'lock' instead of 'peg'.  'Peg' brings up images of a cribbage board where pegs are moved around as needed, and that is also the failure mode of many currency peg schemes (I imagine.)

'Lock' is more indicative of what is happening here.  BTC are locked with high security to back a sidechain extension.  As always, the security is a function of the quality of the implementation of course, but it's pretty clear to me that quality in implementation will bubble to the top (very much unlike the opaque world of off-chain extensions that we have seen to date.)

in my understanding DMMS are a positive evolution when the multi-party signature part are secured and managed in another way like with OT. I see problems with adjusting the Bitcoin protocol to aloe the use of Bitcoins hashing power to be a means to secure these. call them Decentralized-&-autonomous dynamic-membership multi-party signatures.

DMMS = dynamic-membership multi-party signature  (A block chain header)  Any digital signature scheme with one or many potential signers would be an example of a DMMS.  The block chain is just the most interesting one.

Yes, we've been working on coming up with names for the various issues.  I tried to come up with a catchy name for Cypherdoc's risk-free put scenario calling it a "Side Chain in a Fiat Hole", which is funny but probably won't catch on.

There are also various kinds of side chains under discussion.  For the most part when discussing SCs in this thread we've been referring to these DMMS SPV proof 2-way side chains.

Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing.  Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.

If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.

DMMS acronym meaning?

*edited*

When I first started reading this thread, @ some 40 pages in, I didn't start at the beginning. My opinions were formed to a large existent on personality (ego) and my limited understanding.

So I went out and bought gold with BTC thinking at the very least Cypher wouldn't be able prove his argument in my situation as his position depended on having made the trade earlier.
At the time I saw Bitcoin mainly as a currency not a Store of Value, overtime my perceptions have changed, Bitcoins killer app today is Store of Value.  
 

If I learned anything it is don't shoot the messenger. and many readers may not have understood the concerns or given them unrealistic values. As for Cyphers shadow well I can only hope people realize for there to be an upside there has to be a downside. The way one insurers upside success is managing downside risks in ones control.

With brg444 he is overlooking what can be realistically controlled and ignoring what can't. He sees only the upside potential there is now down.

Do you mean SC's using DMMS (SPV proof) ? It would be fine to give them some name. What do you think ?