Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 736. (Read 2032266 times)

Let's be clear here.  You, they haven't given any piece of evidence whatsoever that SC's will perform economically the way you claim. And neither have I. It's ALL opinion at this point so stop talking pedantically as if you have. Maybe someone should get a third party economic analysis although I'd be skeptical of that as well. So I guess that just leaves us where we were before,  trust the geeks and Blockstream to change the rules in the middle of the game for their own benefit . No thanks.

I think we all know how its supposed to function on a high level at this point.  Reviewing code isn't going to change that.  It will simply act on facilitating  the SPVProof, not much else.

But like i said, it appears you guys have your own sense of ethical standards on this issue  so by all means, proceed in that basis because you can  and the rest of us will make our own judgments and take action appropriately.  

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").

It is a lot more simple than you think.
The BTC price rises faster, because that is the first purchase in this scenario.
Then SPV the BTC to scBTC.
By the time these are confirmed, prices should have equalized (because they are pegged, right?)

But... scBTC should trade at a premium on exchange because it avoids the time cost of the SPV.
So both are true: BTC rises faster, and scBTC trades at a premium on exchanges.

BTC doesn't have all that great liquidity now, market cap may be in the billions, but even just a few million dollars moves the market quite a bit.
This process would exacerbate this issue, to the benefit of the speculator.

It is interesting that you bring up arbitrage (which is somewhat different from a peg in that it is for the same asset rather than pegging two different assets).
If it were arbitrage, it would raise other issues such as "wash sale" tax rules.  This may be a "new" problem if scBTC and BTC are deemed by taxing authorities as the same or equivalent asset.  It is already going to become an issue with the CFTC and the Winklevoss ETP soon enough.
The tax authorities are complicit in creating and fostering the illusion that the paper asset is the same as the real asset.  (and that a Winklevoss ETP bitcoin or a coinbase coin are the same as having bitcoin in a wallet you control).

You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

I completely agree: in fact this is exactly what happened in disasters like the mtgox issue.

SC could help in that regards. There is no guarantee, but there is some hope if it works as claimed: that's what "permissionless transition between the two chains" is all about.
For example, with mtgox we had to wait for its permission before withdrawing the btc on yours (theirs) account. That caused the problem to grow bigger and bigger.

We are all on the same boat and it's our responsibility to check their work and warn other users if we see some weak link: we'll try to this job when the first SC will be announced and we'll be able to check the code and its implications.

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.

I'm quite happy  with how bitcoin is and think what Blockstream is doing is conflicted and introduces unnecessary risk. I'm done arguing that.  

Breaking the link between the currency and its ledger introduces too much risk to the system. But by all means go ahead. Devs gotta dev and its clear they've lead the way economically for this whole project. Good luck.

What do you know about what are the readers thinking?
You just know the number of views, not their sentiment.

Maybe history will remember you for how much foolish you were being so stubborn in not understanding that 2wp SC can help Bitcoin move forward

:-) you are right. It is asymmetric-2wp. But if china will want to get paid then they will want BTC to move them into chinaGovSC.

It will be always possible to create blackMarketSC inside govSC
This will allow atomic swaps between blackMarketBTC and BTC and chinaBlackMarketBTC

I'm not sure they would want the "exit" option 

It is possible to use Federated peg  (1:1 BTC) and create govSC with govBTC. (this can be done today, no changes to bitcoin protocol are required).
This SC can be useful for institutional investors b/c they can feel safe as govSC is secured by gov. But this govSC will not allow atomic swaps between govBTC and BTC. => you must use 2wp to enter/exit.

Oh! Ok sure I get what you are saying.

And that is the correct thinking.

Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of.

Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action.

As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway   Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  

You have BTC only if you own pKeys in MC.  Otherwise you own only scBTC with or without scBTC pKey.

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain

I assume you mean Austin Hill will not "enable" gvts to start fiat-SC's

Cypher doesn't realise that altcoins exist already. Don't spoil the surprise.

surely you mean the other way around right?

lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
 - fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
 - you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet,  you only have exchangeBTC
 - scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be  GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
  

I fail to see what the profitable trade is.

You said BTC price rises faster than scBTC so one would think people would want to buy scBTC at discount but then you say that scBTC is actually going for a premium because of convenience to avoid SPV confirmations.


Which is it  

If BTC price rises faster and you are holding scBTC why sell scBTC at discount to exchange buyers when you can use the peg to claim equal value to BTC?

Otherwise it sounds to me like you are describing a regular arbitrage type play. Something only speculators would take part in and I honestly don't see how this can scale to the extent that BTC would lose significant liquidity.

How do you describe it "unwinding". How does those waiting on confirmation lose?

The demand is supported by the "peg".
There is a profitable trade, people will buy.
If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC?
It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature.  The feature matters less than the prices.

The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds....  or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might).

I should add to that : your movement of BTC to scBTC is offset by regular scBTC users buying from you instead of acquiring the scBTC through SPVing.

Demand is simply fulfilled through a different channel. Your "speculative attack" does not increase the amount of BTC on the sidechain

I'd feel it was worth my time if you had an open mind.
If you're up to it please do go through my post history and respond appropriately to the question and inputs  that have been overlooked.