Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 806. (Read 2032266 times)

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.

sorry, you are right. that was indeed an incorrect statement.

the ledger is not shared between sidechains but all 1:1 sidechains abide by its entries.

it doesn't have to be that way.

which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion.

1:1 is optional indeed but then the sidechain is no more a BTC application specific chain but a sidecoin, the younger brother of the altcoin.

Pegging the block reward? I think this explains your misunderstanding.

A 1:1 sidechain is not created with any unit in it. There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin.  the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM.  this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC.  they are not shared when firewalled off from one another.

My understanding is a 1:1 peg is optional. And there is no mention of pegging the block rewards which would also be required to maintain a 1:1 pegged relationship.

The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation.

I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth.

justusranvier: Fundamental misconception here. The urge to hold, and only that, is the source of the value of money. The demand and supply are the wish to hold (expressed as bid for bitcoins on an exchange or elsewhere) and the wish to hold less (as expressed as bid for fiat on an exchange or a bid for some good).

yep, +1

I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."

Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.

You sure are one scared dude.  Why would that be???

 

As much as I like to argue irrational conspiracy theories such as yours it is only right that I recognize those that are more reasonable in their use of logic and refrain from posting FUD

well technically this is what it is. but being that the peg is 1:1 and that they are utility chains that are application specific, their value will mirror BTC's. this does not make them fungible : as others have pointed out and as is properly explained in Konrad Graf's paper, various cost, risks and uncertainties will initially create a likely discount of the BTCpeg (if it were to be traded on the open market, for example). in all likelyhood though, market maturity, infrastructure reinforcement and arbitrage should help narrow that gap significantly in the long term.

you sure are one desperate dude.

I still need to understand how, to me it looks like using ones Bitcoin as collateral while one uses a SC's utility.

Yeah, yeah..."come the revolution".

Always a day awaaay.

+1

 

my man, I have to say you almost had me. I, for one second, had the impression I was conversing with a smart fellow. You should be ashamed of such deception.

your argument is GOVcoin, with inflationary features and corporate sponsors will kill Bitcoin?

well my friend, this is the beauty of cryptocurrency. the democracy of money, where people vote with their $ (or BTC) and may the best man win.

let them have their attempt at GOVcoin and the free market will decide who the winner is.

I, for one, will have no part in it but I wish them luck. they will need lots of it.

I don't see how his quote helps you much.

The SC, to me, is part of the ecosystem, unless it issues a different token on its own chain.

I take objections with the kind of statements that suggest it "could go bad". A sidechain using a 1:1 peg of BTC as its unit cannot go bad from my point of view because they are UTILITY chains. Either they execute their purpose as designed or they don't. Only suckers will want to speculate with these type of chains.

I think we all agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and actually pretty close to being perfect as is. As I have mentionned above, its only shortcomings are in its transportive properties : confirmation times and inability to provide private transactions natively. This leads me to believe these two aspects are likely the only ones that who will lead to the creation of utility sidechains that are used as subsets of Bitcoin-money. In all honesty, is there anything more we need from Bitcoin, as a mean of exchange, than faster confirmation time and a privacy option? I don't think so.

Thousands of other sidechains will be created for different purposes but none will be competing with Bitcoin for its position as crypto-money. Some might try, but will realise they will be better off applying their competing idea to an actual altcoin.

Back to my two utility sidechains : these will never take over Bitcoin as they are effectively serving only a certain application or subset of money. Considering these two applications are using a BTC-peg as their transacting unit they are, barring some technicalities, a part of the Bitcoin network and closely tied to the native bitcoin unit, so much in fact that their 1:1 value will always gravitate toward each others and this correlation will become narrower as arbitrage comes into effect and time allows the technology to mature.

Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin.