Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 740. (Read 2032266 times)

I really do not know what is rationale of this debate.
1) SCs exist
2) SC will exist
SC is not somehing new or something what can be destroyed.

Only new thing is a change in Bitcoin protocol.  Support to verify new dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS) at protocol level.

I'm sorry but you have sorely misunderstood the gist of the comment in the link you posted. Worse, you mistakingly figured it would support your arguments.

Merged-mining, the way it was described in this comment, is essentally supporting multiple competing currencies : altcoins

Now sidechains, as I hope you have come to understand from our discussions, do not enable altcoins in any significant way.

The primary use case of sidechains is not to bootstrap altcoins on top of them.

In fact, to most of the Blockstream developers (from comments read), this mere notion is absurd. Sidechains were not created to "go to war & destroy" altcoins as you might like to think. In reality, altcoins are simply made irrelevant.

While you seem to have problem with "devs dev-ing" this is what they do : use technology to improve processes. Did the Blockstream guys dislike scammy alts? Of course, everyone does. Did they find important to leverage altcoins' innovation to improve the Bitcoin ecosystem? My opinion is this is the idea here.


This theory is blatantly ignorant of network effect. This is another reason why I found it strange for you to pull this one up from the 2012 cementary where it belong.. You do realize this guy is the 2012 version of you Essentially, his proposition is that because of merged-mining, Bitcoins' competing currencies will leverage the security of the network and create a race to the bottom for the most "cost-effective" currency.

Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right. Additionally, Bitcoin's network effect has been growing along, making it even less probable.

i've already went thru that one early on in the 200 pgs +.  but i lol'd at the name    reminded me of a billiard shot.

but i here ya and i expect you to be trolled hard as i was for that one.

It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack.  Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.

If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people.  What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip. 

For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each.  No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

no one's doubting you except for unimaginative, narrow minded, pidgeon-holed shills around here who think only non-speculative up & up businesses will be exploiting SC's.

From sidechain.pdf

again, no substance or imagination from you!:

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

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".

here's a great example of what i'm talking about:

Solvency, Lost in the Fog at the Fed

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/the-feds-ambiguous-definition-of-solvency.html?_r=0

the title could just have easily been "Truth, Lost in the Fog at the Fed".

I get it, it was a joke anyway. 

Fiat is basically enacting a law to try to peg the value of the paper money to gold money. For instance "in all cases, a payment agreed upon to be in specie, is also considered paid when paid with paper". In the 1920s Germany the meme went: A mark is a mark is a mark (whether it is gold or paper). When printing proceeds, the link eventually breaks, and effectively, after that, gold is forbidden as money in trade until the fiat law is withdrawn.

so herein lies the problem.  

to computer scientists, the truth is either a set of 1's or 0's, ie, yes's or no's.  the longer you've lived the more you realize that the "truth" really is a matter of "opinion".  this is why brg444 says flat out, "they (Bitcoiners) won't do that" (meaning speculate).

an ordinary Bitcoiner may conclude that TC is true merely b/c it offers reward miles (or whatever) even tho they may be pegged at 2TC:1scBTC.  Truthcoin will sell it to them as "you'll wanna keep them in TC for immediate usage", may even offer a little interest, or sell the "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into one!"  point being, they'll say "anything" to keep the value stored in TC.  problem being, mass ordinary Bitcoiner's of the future probably won't have the ability to distinguish, or even care about Sound Money and they will do it.

the reason we're having such a intense debate in the first place is b/c i believe the fundamental assertion of the whitepaper is flawed; that being the currency unit (BTC) can be separated from its blockchain (MC).

My comment wasn't about 'truthcoin' which I neither know nor care about.  It was about 'truth'.  If 'truthcoin' is verifiable in implementation ('truth'), my gut sense is that it's probably at least a neutral thing and possibly a good one.  Obviously I would have a vastly better feel for it than 'gut sense' before I took an position (in either a monetary or propaganda sense.)

Maybe choice of words wasn't right but I was thinking of fiat in terms of paper currency as legal tender for gold.

My only criticism of truth coin was that it thought NXT had a low network effect and it would stunt it's growth (I'd rather see the market do that) and some others small misrepresentations of peercoin, other than that I thought it was awesome - negating the macro economic effects on Bitcoin of course.

That I disagree with.  Sidechains are a lot more like $20 gold pieces under a gold-backed national monetary regime.  These coins may be 'legal tender' (enforceable as payment for all debts under a legal framework) but they also have very solid utility absent the legal structures which characterize their status as 'fiat'.  They can be melted.

In this parallel, destroying Bitcoin's fungibility (through, say, network infrastructure control and subsequent red-listing) is equivalent to figuring out the alchemy needed to turn lead into gold.

Maybe we should include those that don't want to be free themselves, because they are afraid of the responsibility. Conclusion: Truthcoin will fail. 

do you even realize how most of recent posts have degenerated to personal attacks?  it shows your desperation.

but i'm glad you showed up shadow.  while you were away, i just scored 40pts, on my way to 55.  you can't guard me.

oh, and btw, help me generate at least another 100,000 plus views for my platform.  you're doing a great job.

You do realize those reward points are inflationary (the corporations change the value from time to time) and they never become more valuable, SC reward points won't be guaranteed to have a 1:1 peg.

Still I'd use them (when I cash out points into a liquid asset like cash I pay a 20% premium and 10 years ago it was at 10%