Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 742. (Read 2032266 times)

Correct but that is how brg444 and i, and I hope everyone else, has been using the terms for the last 200 pages. We have to standardize our language.

Well, here we go already. The concept of paper bitcoin is ramping up already;

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

https://twitter.com/JustusRanvier/status/531454134357356544

I don't agree. Those words are not in the paper, and a coin that is not backed by a bitcoin can not be a part of the peg, and is totally uninteresting.

Edit: The sidechain inventors did not use the word sidecoin, because in their imagination, it is a bitcoin that moves around in the sidechain, which is wrong. The invention of scBTC was from the foggy mind of brg444, I believe.

That's because you haven't been assigned a shadow defender. You're wide open to shoot the 3's.

Érdogan, for purposes of discussion, "sidecoin"  should mean altcoin produced de novo by SC. scBTC should mean what's created from BTC via the 2wp.

10 USD jump, just after my sidechain thrashing, now I know how it feels to be Haruhiko Kuroda.
 

The economics of pegging, again. With Singapore dollars, which is a successful peg to fiat, there is a reserve bank with sufficient reserves to hold the peg. It is pegged to an unknown basket of neighboring countries' fiat, but that is no fundamental difference. The point is that it is not full reserve. If they run out of reserves, they have to tax their people and destroy some Singapore dollars, which may or may not work (it would interfere with the spoils system). The sidecoin peg is supposed to be guaranteed, which means it has to be full reserve. There has to exist a parked bitcoin for every sidecoin. For Singapore, that does not make sense. The point of having a Singapore dollar, is to exploit the seigniorage that would otherwise go to the country to which their money is pegged. With a national currency, they can take their share of the inflation tax. I suppose you could say that that is fair. If they need to desperately salvage the peg with extra taxes to reduce the money supply, it is because they printed to much, so that can also be considered fair. With bitcoin there is no seigniorage, the cost of producing the money equals the value of the money, and there is no seignor, and therefore noone to push for the sidecoins existance.

The liquidity is the ease with which you can part with your money. In the conversion from sidecoin to bitcoin, even if it is full reserve, there will be some resistance, some has talked about a delay of 2 days. It has to be at least the sum of the confirmation times of each chain. Therefore the sidecoins will have some less liquidity (it goes both ways, but since bitcoin starts out with the best liquidity, it is a problem for the sidecoin). The result is that the sidecoin usage can reach some level due to added functionality, but the lower liquidity, which should normally give it a lower value, will, with the pegging presumption, give it a lower usage. Some sidecoins will exist because they are practical, but they will not take off.

We are not in opposition, I have focused lately on the technical viability, I am also skeptical to the economic viability. Mining rewards, or the economics of holding up the system itself, is also not clear, they basically say that they are free to do anything, therefore a solution can be found.

You are possibly right, but even so, the group of n will be in possession, not the current sidecoin holder.

 

The other reason they might mm or direct mine Truthcoin is out of ignorance. Not everyone has got this figured out you know. Just look at the disagreements we"re having here on what's happening. 

Oh the other thing about a  luke jr attack is that he'd be destroying fellow Bitcoiners  like yourself so politically it would be harder to do.  At the same time though much more profitable as he could steal scBTC.

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?

But not long term greed if it would destroy btc. Also mm leave a coin open to attack like when Luke Jr. killed Coiledcoin. So the coin could be killed in the early days due to a 51%.

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that guy thinks Truthcoin needs to be marketed as a SC. And why not? He can logarithmically increase the level of his advertising claims. All altcoin devs are jumping for joy right now as they can't believe their good fortune that there main competition is going to let them directly into the house next to its core engine business model.

Here is the MM  link
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288/3125
K

I'm glad I could help! But I don't think Truthcoin has to operate as a sidechain.

I missed the link but will look through your post history to find it. We certainly don't want any inflation in BTC. But I don't think any other digital currency really has a chance (perhaps an anonymous one).

Thank you for making my point! You are  exactly what I was  looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin!  And they said it won't happen  

Answer:  it might not be a scam!  But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according  to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition .