Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 746. (Read 2032266 times)

 

you're so basic cypherdoc.

one only has to read the whole discussion to realize how far you've moved the goal posts since your original concerns. you may comfort yourself with your twists and turns to the argument that you have somehow the upper hand but it is tragically obvious to anyone following along you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.

the problem is not that I lack imagination, it is that you suffer from a terrible case of selective reading and convenient ignorance of valid objections to your desperate fearmongering.

the point of this exercise, as you say, was to identify risks that sidechains introduced that were never possible before. I would say you have spectacularly failed at this attempt.

 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 down 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 think the notion that there is one main ledger is absolutely accurate

In my view, the more accurate definition of sidechains are that they are a sub-ledgers of Bitcoin.


This is the part where I disagree. There are no coins in a sidechain at its inception therefore there is no ledger. The ledger is only created once coins derived from the main ledger (Bitcoin) are locked into the sidechain.

For that reason I believe the best way to describe it is one main ledger equipped with several other sub-ledgers that derive their monetary unit from the main ledger.

You really shouldn't talk about backpedaling, this is really all you've been doing for the last 100 pages.

My argument was never that schemes like this wouldn't happen. In fact, please dig up ONE post where I say so. I'll wait

Rocks I'll retract my not so funny thread of inconsistency, but why I don't see the ledgers as one and separate is each SC has it's own incentive structure to secure it. While it's convenient to think of them as the same this change in incentives could be a race to the bottom in incentivizing security as others referenced here have pointed out.

FREE LUNCH, someone must alert Dorian!

"Imagination" being the operative word here.  see, even this simpleton gets it:

and speculation NEVER happens in Bitcoin, right?

hey, you forgot about Truthcoin!  Cashcoin!  whateva.

you're not the only one with imagination.  just look how this entrepreneuring young man has seen the opportunity in SC's for him to logarithmically increase his advertising claims in what he sees as the next great opportunity for altcoins.  for just one Truthcoin, you can enable all the features of Ethereum, Bitshares, Counterparty, NXT, Dogecoin, uh, i'm exhausted... did i forget any?

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.

it's my turn to call you out.

these 2 views of yours are contradictory and were made out of convenience to the discussion at hand.

i just love your imagination!  so refreshing.

great example of what will happen with SC's.  in fact, you're gonna do it.

SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.

You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.

Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.

Edit2:
Architecture


  - decentralized network  btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
         
         
        - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
        - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
   

Company can create new asset. -> Company shares. -> This is new AltCoin(Shares) where company is only miner. Company MUST comply with law. 1 AltCoin = 1 Share.

You can trade Bitcon:Share on decentralized exchange but you must comply KYC/AML.  Shares cannot be swapped anonymously. SEC will control swaps. => Company (miner of blockchain) will not allow transfer to new pKey (if you do not deliver KYC/AML).

I agree 100% with brg444. SC is not AltCoin. SC is new feature/service over Bitcoin.

Well... Bitcoin was actually hacked (malliated transactions), but that wasn't what caused (most of) mtgox's problems, it was just used as convenient cover for the other problems.  MK compounded the news confusion by blaming it and maybe bought a few more days, so MK should get the blame on that newsfusion more so than the news that reported it.

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?

Five-fold increase of 'My Wallet Transaction Volume' within 3 month! How this?

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-transaction-volume?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I still see the main chain as the master chain being Bitcoin blockchain, and the side chain as being pegged and validated. even though the side chain is criptograficaly pegged so the 2 chains can be reconciled they are separate chains running on separate servers in separate locations a single merged ledger as you put it will never exist, it can only be constructed through a reconciliation proses.

the inconsistency i found funny was actual the claim that "These are separate threads".

If there are billions of these SC as you say, the vast majority will be so small that the failure of any one would hardly even be noticed. Today there are tons of bitcoin website services and lots of them have gone down/disappeared/etc. Most were so small they were not noticed (I'm speaking to you betsofbitco.in)