(not really)
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 773. (Read 2032266 times)
Goldbugs! take joy in the fact that i weep in my sleep; everynight now since covering (not really)
(not really) One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?
Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.
Ok, we're making progres. If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc. So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.
Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?
NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.
maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding? as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward. it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC. in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining. they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.
is this technically accurate and possible? b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die. if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?
Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.
Ok, we're making progres. If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc. So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.
Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?
NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?
Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.
Ok, we're making progress. If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc. So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoin.
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?
Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain. Users & miners have no use for the sidecoin as the scBTC is safer, more risk-averse (it has the "risk-free" put as you put it)
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time.
scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that
That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well.
where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time.
scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that
That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well.
where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time.
scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that
That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well.
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time.
scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time.
Yes but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation.
except no one is using the sidecoin
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn....
miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.
exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.
a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to
Odalv. Out of curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?
I only own BTC. I do not have any ShitCoins and I do not plan to hold any.
SC is not ShitCoin. Sidechain is technology how to build services on top of bitcoin protocol.
network {TCP/IP, Novel, ... }
services {mail, http, ftp, dns, ...}
network=MC {Bitcoin, Litecoin, ...}
services=SC {ExchangeSC{MergerSC}, FastWalletSC, MixerSC, ...}
I want to scale Bitcoin to the level -> Bitcoin is used everywhere.
- keep what bitcoin is (store of value, and value highway -> you can transfer any amount of value thru bitcon-blockchain)
- OTOH I understand how to add new functionality into it. (better security, privacy, transaction speed, small block-chain - I WANT to keep my copy of main-blockchain where I store my value)
Edit:
Federated peg is good enough for me.
I was only trying to explain you what SC is.
Not looking good...
Buyers of physical will - in the end - determine the price.
Yes. Most phyzz investors are not in the game for a dollar value (at least, not the current dollar).
Bitcoin rocket fueling up
Odalv. Out of curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?
I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic
And it shows.
sideZerocoins are not convertible to scZerocoins and therefore BTC. They are it's own unique asset and therfore not inflationary to BTC
As far as your second point about a fixed supply of 21M BTC always holding value despite being spread out over a thousand different sidechains? Think if it this way. You're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure coins off an unhackable ledger and moving them over to a thousand different insecure quite hackable ledgers. The equilibrium BTC price after arb will be dragged lower
Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?
- SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
- Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names 2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.
it's not the same. you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.
Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp.
If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges.
I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity).
Quote
yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.
when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.
when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.
Using different 2wp hacking can be harder b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC)
This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol.
I don't have a problem with federated pegs because they don't involve protocol changes.
Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!
Yay!
I guess you have fun with your PM shorts recently. Yay!
I closed them out one dump too soon but that's ok. Ive made plenty off of tvbcof already.
Jump to: