Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 745. (Read 2032266 times)

Sure it does. The derivative SC's will enable a new type of hack or attack we've never heard of or seen before in Bitcoin. Maybe we can call it the "decapitation attack".

The risk is the same : to trust your money elsewhere than on the blockchain. The schemes to deceive people into doing so might increase in numbers with sidechain but the risk is the same.

As for your second comment, I'm sorry but they absolutely should understand it. It is the very principle of Bitcoin : creating a trustless environment. It took a long time for Bitcoin to establish this status and it should be obvious that any step outside of its circle exposes you to risk that should be accounted for.

Also, I have some difficulty with your proposition that "ordinary people" will be trusting their money to all kind of obscure sidechains. Ordinary people only trust mainstream and established platforms. It is very unlikely the majority of them will fall victim to overlycomplicated schemes.

I sincerely believe that. I can't explain your actions any other way.

Like i said, you're like my shadow defender trying to deny me the ball at every step.

The mechanism by which the sub-ledger is corrupted changes nothing to the argument.

 

Hey, I'm having fun here. I  enjoy listening to all your ad hominems.

And the only thing I don't care about is my reputation as I don't have anyoneiI need to please except myself knowing that I have no conflict of interest and my motives are pure in simply trying to protect Bitcoin. I honestly doubt you can say the same thing.

A ledger that allows those gox coins  to simply change hands to those of the attacker,  not one where the coins vaporize.

Desperation devoid of argument.

I love it.

What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"?

"What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox"

The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger.

Oh please, don't make me have to dig up your old posts. You were literally on a witch hunt for the Blockstream devs and their motives and at one point qualified sidechains unequivocally as "sidescams".

This "higher than thou" attitude your are now parading is quite sickening I might say. This was no brainstorm and discussions "meant to stimulate imaginative debate". Your goal all along was to discredit sidechains and their creators

Answer this,  what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?

There you go again.  This was never about taking a set  position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post  way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible  cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path  and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied.  We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.

the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2  utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.  

You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton.  

I don't know if it is a new problem or not, but the explanations and creation of understandings in the minds of the broader public may be made more difficult by the "one ledger only" notions.  EmptyGox very clearly had its own ledger which at some point became irreconcilable with the Bitcoin block chain.  If it were a side chain company that had monkeyed with its code to do these shenanigans, it would possibly been more noticeable (if it were being openly mined by folks that examine source changes), but if they managed to keep it hidden, or were privately mining (like Ripple?) it may also be more difficult to explain to the "one ledger only" believers how this is possible.

In the earlier example where scBTC₁ failed and scBTC₂ became an altcoin, at some point in this process there are very clearly (at least) two separate ledgers.  
I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able.  Others might suggest some other time.  Maybe at one of the many changes that resulted in the failure of scBTC₁, or maybe after it fails, or maybe never and the scBTC₂ altcoin and Bitcoin are still just one ledger.  In that case, when the ledger of scBTC₁ failed, some might get confused and say the Bitcoin ledger failed.  (Since they have been told that there is only one ledger, and something failed, so it must be that.)

It seems simpler and more sensible to me to consider each side chain its own potentially merge-able ledger.  It is hard enough to try to explain how a ledger is merged with "something" when there is only one ledger in the first place, with what then is it merged?

I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able.