Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 737. (Read 2032266 times)

I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far.

It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

this was one of your most sensible post and it seems you have come around to some my line of thinking. there are some things I take exception with though...


It is not that the value is greater but merely different. Sidechains serve a different utility than BTC. Some might value convenience more (SC), others prefer security & liquidity (BTC).


I'm glad you are able to come to that conclusion as well. Some it appears are to shortsighted to believe this could happen.


I'm having some problem with that train of thought. First, it seems to me that the increase in value is not originated on the SC. Some will suggest that scBTC are traded on exchange but I don't find that to be convenient for users. Who would buy a premium scBTC on exchange when you can buy a regular BTC and convert it 1:1? Therefore, it is BTC's value that increases because of users finding value in the attached SCs.

Having said that, I'm not sure about the jump you're making about Bitcoin "sacrificing profits" and miners subsequently leaving the network less secure. Maybe you can expand on that?


Agree with most of that


As stated above, I disagree with that logic. Bitcoin is the source of the growth because Bitcoin is the underlying monetary unit. Users will buy BTC to participate in this economy and access the different SCs. Bitcoin is never "dragged up".

^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.

Somewhat, if value is created on a SC that is greater than that of Bitcoin the Bitcoin stays there.

Decentralized SC that function as a means of exchange and use merged mining will probably offer the most security miners will mine all viable ones and the difficulty will be in close equilibrium with Bitcoin. They can be thought off as secure as Bitcoin.

The users will go wherever it's most cost effective to exchange value, on the SC an increase in value is reflected in the price of Bitcoin, however that increase in value is attributed to being the biggest network with the lower fees, this increase in BTC value won't be reflected in mining revenue because it comes at the expense of sacrificing profits, leaving the network less secure.

The SC that offer additional utility at a premium or greatest arbitrage will alow miners to grow and secure the network, that hashing power is distributed over the whole network, those coins that earn the most for miners, when this type of growth happens will incentivized to mine those SC, they will drive new investment in mining and become more secure. In this case this network will be growing and Bitcoin and other SC will be getting the benefits of added security.

This growth is inflationary taking value out of Bitcoin, the market locks it in. I'd only consider the growth inflationary because that is value on top of Bitcoin in that scenario Bitcoin is dragged up but it's not the source of the growth.

First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger.

But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all?

No demonstration is needed of this.
Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right?  By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg"  The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived.
Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there.
If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue.

answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

 

NotLambChop, is that you  

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else.  thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's:  gvt inflation for Bitcoin.

The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter.

What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated

Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve"

So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?

Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else.  thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's:  gvt inflation for Bitcoin.