Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 768. (Read 2032266 times)

 

Sidechains is possibly the best thing to have ever happened to Bitcoin as far as its sound money property.

It allows us to improve its money function without disrupting its ledger.

Without sidechain you can absolutely expect more inflation/fractional reserve, more centralization, and more trust in central entities.

Your analysis of sidechains has been a failure all around.

 

You are great at selective reading cypher, really, really good.

Sidechains will have to subsidize Bitcoin to a well functioning state else they cannot themselves function.  Indeed, there will probably be a competition among sidechains to subsidize Bitcoin (which has both pros and cons.)

This would hold as long as Bitcoin is seen as a credible and performant reserve currency, and driving it into reliance on and control by mainstream corporate infrastructure providers through excessive growth is the main thing which could cause Bitcoin to fail in this respect.

The magic here is that it gives Bitcoin a very credible means of survival even if native profitability fails.  This is key because there are some real question marks about how Bitcoin can achieve this on it's own given the sha256 capacity and distribution.

My persistence is because of my duty to counter misinformation and FUD based on willful ignorance of basic concepts and inability to comprehend sidechains.

You are trying to protect Bitcoin from shadows that do not exist. This is bordeline schizophrenia.

There might be some risks to Sidechains but you are so far off them you are doing the worst possible job playing the RISK position advocate. Maybe take a moment to sharpen your tools and come back with something more plausible because your are trying to poke holes in something using arguments sporting even bigger holes in them.

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement.  i've talked about this for years here.  how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

  not Cypher doing the confusing its brg444 he pulls the discussion away form the issue Cypers being trolled hard.  

See where this is going?

Speculators can already buy the same feature of Bitcoin plus anonymity : Monero/Darkcoin

But now with sidechains Bitcoin users have access to anonymity through scBTC on a 1:1 peg.

So essentially there exist no more distinguishable feature for any altcoin/sidecoin. The utility is now available using Bitcoin and not having to expose yourself to additional volatility and security risks. Therefore, the altcoin/sidecoin have no more argument to attract users. Speculation? Speculation on what exactly? Future use? There is no future use because there is now a better, safer option offering the same features.

You have to understand, as everyone here does, that the sidecoin booted on top of the sidechain is useless, offers no additional value for the users. The experiment of innovative utility failed to catch any traction with altcoins, even considering the "discount ground floor price". Contrarily to what you think, this experiment has no better chance on a sidechain. In fact, it is stripped of all its appeal by scBTC on 1:1 peg that can offer the SAME features without any tradeoff.  

this reminds me of another point i wanted to make, unrelated to your post.

i find it striking that you and brg444, SC's strongest proponents on this thread, are so far apart on your vision of the #SC's that will arise.  brg444 narrowmindedly tries to pidgeon hole the #SC's down to a mere two in his future vision; anonymity and faster tx times.  you, otoh, openly say there will be billions.  from your posts i can see you at least have imagination and an expansive mind, which is refreshing in and of itself unlike brg444, and i happen to agree with you when it comes to your estimate.

so i ask, if there are billions of SC's in action processing tx fees, where will all the badly needed tx fees come to support Bitcoin in the long run when the blockchain rewards are gone?

this 

Hi Peter great to have your input, the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" was a great trojan, but if the proposed Blockstream "soft" fork is introduced it wont be a meme it'll be reality.

edit Spelling.

Ya, you've been marvelously dead-wrong about a bunch of stuff in the past with no hint of malfeasance.  That is the primary reason I cut you the slack here that I do


I never write off observations like this.  I put them in the filing cabinet for matches against various hypotheses.

in the meantime, silver is being destroyed.  need i say more on this topic?

Here is exmple how to implement ZC feature over BITCOIN block-chain

scBTC will not move to ZC.
1. We will create new SC over btc-blockchain
2. This new mixerSC can be mined by HMM  and (Timestamp server or hashing Oracle)

Now you can use 2x swaps.  BTC to mixerBTC and mixerBTC to BTC  and you will have BTC mixed with 2 people.
Or you can use 2x 2wp.  BTC to mixerBTC and mixerBTC to BTC  and you will have BTC mixed with other 2 x N people.
Or you can deposit 10 BTC and withdraw 10 x 1 BTC.
You can do few random transaction in mixerSC to mix them more using mixerZC protocol (it will use same alg. as ZC, but that is all. No other connection to ZC alt-chain).

There will not be a mass migration to scBTC, because, the free floating value of scBTC will be less. It is not enough that the sidechain has some better properties, even if all technical properties are as good as or better than bitcoins, bitcoins is far better in liquidity.

Take Argentina peso as an example. It is pegged to a higher value to dollar than what is natural (the market price). If they could choose, everybody in Argentina would convert their pesos to dollar at the peg price. If the pegging authority could offer conversion of all pesos at that rate, all value would disappear from pesos. 

To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, It’s my view that this is in debate when in fact it isn’t.

Some considerations for MM SC:
Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Is it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SC’s then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SC’s?  
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?  
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Is it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners won’t be Bitcoin?  
Is it possible that when Bitcoin’s block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason)  

Now if you answered NO to any of the above you need to provide a rational expiation as to why it is not possible?
If the above came to pass, knowing the majority of a miner’s revenue is generated by a SC, who will have a profit motive to grow the Hashing power on the Bitcoin Blockchain to protect it?
Why would they want to protect it?

Imagine you got most of your revenues from one SC and someone made a new one and taking advantage of an innovation that your ASIC’s  couldn’t leverage (or you don’t like the a rich guy who has a big stake in competing SC). You could take the profit from your SC mining, so sustain your business, and you could 51% attack the Bitcoin network to prevent defectors from leaving your profitable SC you could collude with other pools – no need to kill Bitcoin you could just charge a 5BTC per kb transaction fee to process the transfes. (this doesn’t add value nor is it innovation)


TL;DR I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

this is exactly where i'm coming from.  everybody here knows i already run my mouth even before this SC issue.  so in that sense, i'm behaving normally.  and b/c i have no conflict of interest, i don't care what ppl think of me.  i'm just trying to protect Bitcoin.

it's brg444 incessant counter posting of my every thought beginning the exact day of the whitepaper that is suspicious.

i'll just recycle the same arguments i gave above calmly.

when you say NO ONE WILL USE IT, that comes from only your perspective as a Bitcoin proponent who can't see past his nose.  you ignore the fact that i keep saying that if the scZC is designed with a fixed supply goal just like Bitcoin, it can and will attract speculators who will buy the same features that Bitcoin has plus anonoymity, but at a much lower early adopter price.  yes, it will up to the ZC sidechain to attract mining.  but b/c anonymity is a desired feature and b/c it offers a chance at getting in on a ground floor price of say $0.006/scZC as an example, attracting miners shouldn't be a problem b/c not only will miners be getting scZC block rewards, they will be getting scBTC and scZC tx fees.  and the scBTC will be protected by the 1:1 peg.

if this scenario not possible solely from a technical standpoint of SC's, then i need to know now, otherwise i believe i'm right.

A big shout out to ~brg444 for doing yeoman's duty here.  Your efforts are definitely provoking some of the vested interests into exposing their hands.

I personally don't completely write off cypherdoc's assertions that he only cares about the health of Bitcoin and see's sidechains as a threat, but it's becoming less and less plausible as his desperate stretches and contortions build.

he is actually spot on and describes in great details why you are wrong.

you think there is a difference between sidecoins and altcoins. there is a gang of people here who have tried to explain to you why there isn't in 100 different ways but still you refuse to acknowledge it. this is called delusion and you suffer from a serious case of it.

Monero is available today! Cheap startup anonymity coin, probably as much hashing power as your shit scZC and all the upside! Don't miss your chance!