Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 738. (Read 2032266 times)

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

are you now unfair too?

b/c the answer is not an A or B, it's not a 0 or a 1, it's not true or false, it's not either or, it's not black or white.  ppl will make decisions based on shades of grey and everything in btwn.  just b/c you won't do it doesn't mean that millions of other ppl with different opinions, values, likes, dislikes, views on monetary theory WON'T DO IT.  there are plenty of speculators who will want access to prediction markets, just like keystroke.  i might even like to play it out of interest or as a hobby.  i might not care that i get 2TC for 1scBTC or vice versa.  i might accept the fact that the TC might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the TC offers.  you are such a lame brain that you still can't see this.  that ppl come in all shapes and varieties with different objectives, values and interest.  you're embarassing yourself with your black and white scenarios.

now answer my question.

You're missing the fact that you accepted this scenario made no sense at all because there is no reason for the indepedent TC to exist.

I, the user, only care about the 1:1 peg, I want no part of your floating price scammy garbagecoin.

It is asinine to believe a sidechain would want to support two monetary unit that are not fungible. No use case for this, no incentive for any significant part of the market to participate in such an obviously scammy scheme.

Wire this into your brain, the market is gonna be presented with two scenario :

Sidechain A : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg as monetary unit. No danger of inflation for the users' stake : value is preserved through the peg. Absent of typical native currency volatility.

Sidechain B : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg but for some obscure, unidentified reasons, attaches a scammy altcoin that is not fungible, offers no distinguishable advantage over the pegged unit and exposes the user to dangerous volatility that is natural to bootstrapped altcoins with shady initial distribution.

Unless you present me with a plausible scenario where the bootstrapped altcoin would be of significant interest to the user, then your pipe dream scenario holds no ground.

I will answer your question when you answer mine. You haven't, yet.

1. Why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin?

2. What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

3. What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC.  and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1.  it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets.  you keep making the same error.

are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

No no no. How can you still say this!? Altcoins can not claim the "risk free put" feature. Either they are altcoin or scBTC. Anyone will be able to verify if the peg is effectively 1:1, it doesn't matter what the coin promoter advertises.

Advertising that you can switch between BTC & TC freely is no indication that the peg is 1:1. It is merely a decentralized exchange process between an altcoin and BTC. This feature alone is not enough to fuel demand for a particular altcoins.


So again your argument is a more elaborate scam scheme leveraging the "sidechain" brand and using an altcoin will lead to the demise of Bitcoin? You do realize such deceptive schemes can only work so much until the community of fools in general is better advised and has learn from their foolish mistake?

The honeybadger doesn't care about petty criminal schemes. The market, with time, punishes bad actors and create trusted communities around good ones. Good money drives out bad money. Your altscams are in no way a significant threat to Bitcoin. They only threaten idiots and greedy, ill-advised investors.


Spectacularly wrong, again. Yes, speculation might guarantee SOME mining. Unfortunately SOME mining makes your stupid TC considerably less secure than the BTC blockchain. A situation already observable with conventional altcoins.

So now we have two reasons why the market should and will avoid your scamcoin :
1. Inherently less secure
2. Proposes a scammy altcoin as its monetary unit instead of using the safer 1:1 peg

Remember that no matter the feature your scamcoin will claim, there will be one created exactly the same BUT attracting more users because of its safer, more risk-averse 1:1 peg.

Unprofitable Bitcoin miners can defect to speculate on becoming early adopter of ALTCOIN for block rewards ALREADY. Sidechains do not enable this possibility nor do they come with better equipped altcoins.

If TC becomes popular enough = if ALTcoin becomes popular enough. History shows this is not likely to happen significantly enought to endanger Bitcoin's leading position. It does not matter how many are created, the majority of them will be as irrelevant and insignificant to BTC's value than any other alts.

It seems you are still unable to answer these questions with clear arguments void of distraction and fallacious assumptions :

like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.    

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.  this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain.  and they can sell that to ordinary users who will gladly use them by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp.  after all, it's true, right? the peg works? look at the Truthcoin ad below:



the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  you'll see claims like "Truthcoin:  Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0".  it's all there:



SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue.  once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today.  you can't say that won't happen.  you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again.  unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.  it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg.  if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv.  they won't all fail and they will be competition for Bitcoin.

this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's.

now your turn to answer a question.  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem?

I am also done arguing with you.

You have conveniently avoided most of my posts and have responded to none of my questions.


Can you address that with sound, reasonable arguments?

I don't think I can control it, I'm arguing the market will go for the safest, most risk-averse options.

I believe I am the one who has pidgeon holed the other by effectively confirming that all of your risk scenario are already possible through altcoins but have not materialized.

You continue to dodge my arguments because I don't believe you have an answer to them

You're afraid of altcoins, but altcoins already exist. You assume I think only non-speculative sidechains will be created when in fact I'm only arguing that now that it is possible to create them, altcoins are severely incapacitated and will not prevail in a market looking to preserve the value of its assets. The network effect will continue to work in BTC's favors. Idiots and fools might fall victim to more elaborated schemes through the use of sidechains but bad actors can only stay in business so long and eventually community supported/vetted alternatives suceed. Leaving the scammers in the dirt.

You're shallowness and blind ego is your downfall.

basically your problem comes down to this:  you think you can control speculation by using SC's.

i think you are very wrong on this.  altcoin devs are going to have a field day with SC's of all types:  corporations, banks, reward programs.  hell, even Austin Hill wants gvts to have one.  Jack Liu has all sorts of ideas too:

http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-coming

my arguments have pidgeon holed you down to a scenario that HAS to play out for SC's to work as you envision:  2 utility chains for fast txs and anonynity with 100% MM and NO SPECULATIVE SC's.

that expectation of yours is ludicrous.  we already have TC and keystroke IRL examples of what's coming.  we have the whitepaper talking about Freicoin demurrage coin, section 5.2 Issued assets, pg 15 talks about complementary currencies, pg 16:

Subsidy.
A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively
forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result
would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.

these are all coming with SC's yet you persist with your delusions.

I do not pretend to have the power of making insinuations out of keystroke's post and pretend to know his intentions the way you have been doing for the last couple of pages.

Of course it was expected of you to jump on a 10 word sentence and twist it to fit your argument.


The "decapitation" attack is very much theoretical and sound to me just like another scam scheme that can be avoided by proper due diligence of the user. I fail to see how this become a potential bitcoin-killer. There are only so many fools.


Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post


Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words.


We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply.

Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted.

do i have to remind you again?  these sidecoins are going to happen to SC's whether you like or not as well.  you will have to live with that crow for the rest of your life.  they are going to love the fact that they can suck BTC off MC so easily BTC--->scBTC--->2TC at no charge.  they can't believe you're letting them into the house!

like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.    

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.  this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain.  and they can sell that to ordinary users by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp.  after all, it's true, right? look at the Truthcoin ad below:



the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  you'll see claims like "Truthcoin:  Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0".  it's all there:



SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue.  once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today.  you can't say that won't happen.  you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again.  unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.  it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg.  if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv.  they won't all fail.

this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's.

now your turn to answer a question.  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem?

In fact YOU are the one missing the point. Point being that sidechains do not enable altcoins. In fact they considerably incapacitate their "raison d'être" by making their inflationary coins dispensable.

 

that's what is so funny. sidechains are going to happen, they are gonna help bring Bitcoin to the next level, and there is nothing you can do about it 

enjoy that crow for the rest of your life

 

Man it takes some audacity to come up with the stupidity you do on a regular basis. How exactly is the market fleeced into trading into an inflationary secondary sidechain when they already declined this proposition at first.

You do realise that...

1 BTC > 2 sc(1)BTC

is the same as

1 BTC > 1 sc(1)BTC> 2 sc(2)BTC

... is the same right?

If the user is concerned with the conservation of his value, what scenario do you suggest that would have him change his mind once on sc(1).

This is so preposterous. It really is tragic how clueless you are.


 

But there absolutely is. Network effect has shown to be too important for such a thing to happen. The reason he is proven wrong is because the market, in almost 3 years, has shown no desire for diversification of currencies. No competitor has shown itself valuable enough that its feature would compete with Bitcoin's network effect.

Let's troll more. :-)

The Earth is flat, instead of spherical.
The Earth is statical and the Sun revolves around.

lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough.

you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.

I love that I have turned yourself into a troll unable to realize the foolishness of his position and piggybacking off others argument to support your desperate stance.

I can tell that your credibility has taken a shot since this all began. Maybe this is what is making you lose reason?  

you're missing the point again.  TC is probably going to maintain the 1:1 peg.  if not, i would advise them to do so to fool ppl like you who don't understand what's going on so that you can still get fleeced by being tempted to trade 1scBTC for perhaps an inflationary 2TC.


I couldn't care less who he is, he was wrong in his assumption (reasonable at the time) that this was a threat to Bitcoin.