Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 770. (Read 2032266 times)

watch him try to refute this with more fallible arguments

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



care to tell me the difference between scZC and Monero?

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.


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.

The argument is here :

Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.

Can you argue this is not plausible?

Yes you did, right here :


This suggest before scZC establish considerable value there is no incentive for miners to MM or mine them


  You realise this goes against every one of your arguments. Indeed, the scBTC defeats every reason to put anyone's value anywhere else because of the risk free put. The risk free put doesn't exist on the shitsidecoin

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?

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.

The 'Bitcoin is money' bullshit has been going on as long as I've been paying attention.  I've long argued (weakly since I don't really give a shit about it) that whatever Bitcoin is, there is no utility in calling in 'money'.  Doing so just invites hassles.

It's difficult not to get frustrated at the narrow mindedness and lack of self-assurance of the great swaths of the Bitcoin community.  But I persevere.

The largest risk of that strategy is underestimating the intelligence of whomever the Trojan horse is supposed to fool.

Well put as usual Peter. This is along the same lines as Apple Pay, which is a great product in the sense that it will get the general population accustomed to using their smartphone as a wallet. It will eventually help Bitcoin adoption, it can't  compete (or at least won't win) because it is orders of magnitude less efficient by design.

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  .  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...  

so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue?
any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC.  i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it.

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  and the miners have every reason to mine or MM scZC b/c of the extra block rewards and tx fees from both scZC and scBTC.

So you're saying altcoins are going to take over because it is potentially easier to transfer BTC to sidechains than it is to buy them on exchange?

That's not a very good argument

mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC.  it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.

Well good luck to those party pooper going against the mass of people who want to preserve it

So finally you admit that miners will not care to mine or MM a shitsidecoin with no market acceptance/value.

Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.

 

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!

I swear I saw a post once where one of the wallet developers (Hivewallet???) announced it was his personal and professional goal to break the limited issuance of Bitcoin as a currency.

other ppl/entities have been trying to disrupt Bitcoin's market leading position for quite some time now. so far they have failed quite spectacularly. how is sidechains helping them again?

(please don't say merged mining)

yes it is competing. but if scZC is only $0.006/scZC vs $340/scBTC and ppl like me like perfect anonymity but don't want to pay $340/scBTC, i will buy the $0.006/scZC with fiat on an exchange.

and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.

And your bet is that these altcoins are going to catch up to Bitcoin's network effect because?

(please don't say they have more innovative features, Bitcoin has these same features through its 2wp 1:1 sidechains)

But sidecoin with feature is competing with scBTC with the same feature, greater market acceptance, more liquidity, bigger network effect.

Sidecoin reintroduces risk of greater volatility, sketchy distribution and likely inferior network security.

Sidecoin = altcoin