Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 769. (Read 2032266 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 03:06:16 PM
glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?


BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC.  get it?

BUT NO ONE WILL WANT TO USE THIS scZC !!! GET IT!?

It has no distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put. Where is the value proposition? What is the difference with just about any altcoin. Actually it is worst than any altcoin because offers no innovation that BTC users cannot get through scBTC.

God you are dense this is pathetic. I don't know why I'm spending so much energy on your miserable attemps at FUD. You have cleary successed in confusing yourself to the point you don't realise the hole you are in.

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 03:00:34 PM
glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?


BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC.  get it?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.

how are they performing? are they secure? if you remove their attempt at differentiation from BTC with anonymity, faster block transactions or what not do you think they will still get support?

you said they won't be mined. that means zero mining.  now you're changing your position.  any reasonable person can see they will be mined, just to what extent.  b/c it's ZC, it has an excellent chance of being mined actually.
not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?

That has nothing to do with a premine.

Why don't you adresse my question :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

they are storing their scBTC on the ZC sidechain which includes scZC.  both coins are riding on the ZC sidechain benefitting from perfect anonymity.
who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.

scBTC already offers anonymity, it doesnt need the shitcoin

but scZC speculators want to buy cheap startup anonymity coins at perhaps $0.006/scZC.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:55:52 PM
glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:55:15 PM
how can you praise the idea yet reconcile this with SC's?  in the heart of the paper they say their core assumption is that the BTC units can be separated from the blockchain.  this is wrong.

 Huh

because you don't understand their argument doesn't mean it's wrong.

because clearly, you don't understand it.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:53:57 PM
we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.

how are they performing? are they secure? if you remove their attempt at differentiation from BTC with anonymity, faster block transactions or what not do you think they will still get support?

not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?

That has nothing to do with a premine.

Why don't you adresse my question :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.

scBTC already offers anonymity, it doesnt need the shitcoin
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:50:25 PM
If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  Cheesy.  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

I'm rolling with that, too. Had the insight a while back that this is an approach I can easily live with. Sneak it in Wink.

I've been wondering what percentage of the "blockchain as tech" proponents actually think that way secretly.

i have a question for all those praising Peter (i do too).

how can you praise the idea yet reconcile this with SC's?  in the heart of the paper they say their core assumption is that the BTC units can be separated from the blockchain.  this is wrong.

 Huh
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
November 05, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  Cheesy.  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

I'm rolling with that, too. Had the insight a while back that this is an approach I can easily live with. Sneak it in Wink.

I've been wondering what percentage of the "blockchain as tech" proponents actually think that way secretly.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:46:50 PM
Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

He is obviously confused himself and his constant moving of the goal post has him lost in multiple interjected erronous arguments

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:45:28 PM
Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

He is obviously confused himself and his constant moving of the goal post has him lost in multiple interjected erronous arguments
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:45:24 PM

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.

and I explained several times why you are wrong thinking that.

i've answered every non answer you've brought up.
Quote
you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it

it's possible but i don't think so.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:44:10 PM
but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC.  therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins.  sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.

No, the sidecoin is only MM if there is value in it. The comparison to Bitcoin is asinine. Bitcoin had no competition. There was no choice for miners or better use of their resource

we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.
Bitcoin started of at $0.  "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.

If it's only mined by its dev than it make it a HUGE security risk. Exactly like any other altcoins. Again, no one wants to store their value on extremely volatile sidecoins that are considerably more risky, less secure and have no distinct feature.

not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?
the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

there is no risk free put on the scZC

who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:41:59 PM

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.

and I explained several times why you are wrong thinking that.

you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:40:55 PM
and i never said the scZC have the risk free put.  only scBTC.

you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

 Huh
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

i have no altcoin investments and i don't have any equity investments any Bitcoin companies or altcoins companies.

i have no conflict of interest as i've already stated whatsoever.  but you already read that, didn't you?  

i actually would like to propose that perhaps you and brg444 are paid shills?  

no ones given me any good arguments to mine that i've seen.  all i see are pronouncements and misleading allegations.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 05, 2014, 02:38:35 PM
but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC.  therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins.  sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.

No, the sidecoin is only MM if there is value in it. The comparison to Bitcoin is asinine. Bitcoin had no competition. There was no choice for miners or better use of their resource

Bitcoin started of at $0.  "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.

If it's only mined by its dev than it make it a HUGE security risk. Exactly like any other altcoins. Again, no one wants to store their value on extremely volatile sidecoins that are considerably more risky, less secure and have no distinct feature.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

there is no risk free put on the scZC
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 05, 2014, 02:33:22 PM
Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
why wouldn't a new investor buy scZC on a fiat exchange?  why wouldn't a miner want to not only mine tx fees for scBTC as well as mine scZC block rewards + scZC tx fees?

don't say there is no one "using" scZC.  Bitcoin's price started out at $0 when no one was "using" it.  look what happened to it.

Why? Because it's essentially a new alt coin. How is the actual zerocoin doing? Any miners bothered merged mining it?

The new investor can either buy the scZC and expose himself to all the risks or buy BTC and use the scBTC zerocoin feature pegged 1:1 with the risk-free put.

Which one would you use?

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

if the scZC is priced at, let's say $0.006/scZC compared to $342/BTC, i would buy the coin with the greater upside (scZC) that has the same anonymity feature as scBTC since the SC has MM for security with actual direct mining from small miners defecting.

He doesn't understand that sidecoin = altcoin.

He can't comprehend why there is no more incentive for miners to merge mine or smaller miners to direct mine sidecoins than regular altcoins.

He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment and make it possible to use new features : the essence of sidechains.

Or maybe he does, but he is so disingenuous he will not admit it.

This has been the entire problem with this thread IMHO. The arguments for sidechains (true sidechains with 1:1 pegging) are getting merged with the arguments against altcoins.

Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential.

But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins.

The beauty of sidechains is they enable new features to be added to the Bitcoin mainchain 21M BTC ecosystem, while not requiring risky hard forks of the mainchain. This will grow the value of that 21M coins.

I have seen no valid arguments against this.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic

And it shows.

You missed my point. It was not that I am not familiar with SC's because I haven't tracked the 100 pages here very closely. It was that I think the 100+ pages have mostly been hysterical noise. I understand your argument 2 posts up, I just disagree completely with it.


instead of making pronouncements, you should get into the details of what i'm saying to prove me wrong.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:30:34 PM
and i never said the scZC have the risk free put.  only scBTC.

you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 05, 2014, 02:29:26 PM
what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM.  if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?

Here is the fundamental problem/misunderstanding in your argument. Sidecoins have no risk free put. Only 1:1 scBTC have. This is precisely why there will be no interest to invest in a sidecoin when there is a scBTC that offers the same feature AND the risk-free put

what's wrong with you?  why do you keep trying to ascribe that "misunderstanding" to me?  anyone following this knows i know only scBTC have the 1:1 peg.  i'm beginning to think you're a shill here despite your denial.

the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC.  since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value.  if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC.  miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.

btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance!

care to tell me the difference between scZC and Monero?

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.
Pages:
Jump to: