Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 813.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:58:20 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:52:44 PM

are you associated with their company in any way?

the only association I have with them is that I recognize the potential added value of sidechains and would like to give the runner a chance considering its potential upside could far exceed the doomsday scenario you propose.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

If you offer a demurrage coin as an added incentive for an SC, you won't be perceived as a pump and dump altcoin. Businesses would like the idea of moving currency.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:54:37 PM

not at all. the real key is that a SC will be a nascent currency plus an innovation with plenty of potential. a whale could easily jerk the price upwards and then get follow on from other whales or speculators willing to be the new early adopters of a "better" currency.

Why have they not done it with an alt-coin then Huh

Much like smooth has indicated, you worst case scenario is quite literally an alt-coin taking over.

Sidechain didn't create that problem. No your farfetched "risk-free put" is not a valid argument, it is full of holes.

The only risk-free position is on the BTC mainchain.

At this point the only risk we witness a migration of the kind you suggest is if the destination is considered by the market to be as secure as BTC and offering an innovation so important the value proposition is too large to ignore. It is terribly naive to believe a "whale" could ignite such a movement.

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 07:18:16 PM

I don't think there is any predicament at all. If the side chain is objectively a better chain as determined by stakeholders, then it is simply time to move on. There is not necessarily any reason try to try to backport everything to the original chain. BTC will have fulfilled its useful purpose of giving birth to the improved scBTC/BTC2.

you know what, it turns out I agree with this 100% and this is another reality for which cypherdoc has no answer

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Time out. This is all hypotheticals. Rather than butt heads, go in different directions and may the best ideas win. There's no limit to new ideas.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:52:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:51:14 PM

and i'm impressed at what an idiot you are continuing to shill for SC's and your willingness to bury your head in the sand.

and why and how did you just happen to pop here on the day the SC paper was released specifically countering my every point and trying to denigrate my position by pointing to the Reddit AMA despite the clear and positive/upvote point count i got? one might think you're associated with them in some way.

in case you hadn't noticed, all of us here are trying to seek the truth despite your presence.

please don't start lieing through your teeths. I have read every single posts from that AMA and your posts were hanging in the sewers of most sub-topics and casually dismissed when engaged by the sidechain developers

you are a fear mongerer who tries to stand on arguments that hold no ground and scenarios from fairy tales.

are you associated with their company in any way?

dillpicklechips

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 507

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:46:06 PM

Quote from: dillpicklechips on October 29, 2014, 10:44:06 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:37:41 PM

in your base case, a 1:1 peg, there is no coin issuance, no block subsidy, so no incentive to jump boat

Transactions will happen on the sidechain and can charge tx fees, all of which are able to be converted right back to BTC if wanted. The only incentive to jump boat would be to use a feature.

go back and read my comments from today about this. there seems to be several reasons for a BTC holder to jump to scBTC immediately once a whale starts pumping thru the peg and the price starts rising.

don't forget other speculators who just want to use their fiat on an exchange to buy (pile on) a rising asset (scBTC) with significant growth potential.

I tried but I don't why "whale starts pumping" means in the context of sidechains. The peg is built-in. If a sidechain was pegged 1:1 how would a whale cause the sidechain to change in value and why would people pay a premium as apposed to locking BTC themselves to use the sidechain?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:52:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:51:14 PM

and i'm impressed at what an idiot you are continuing to shill for SC's and your willingness to bury your head in the sand.

and why and how did you just happen to pop here on the day the SC paper was released specifically countering my every point and trying to denigrate my position by pointing to the Reddit AMA despite the clear and positive/upvote point count i got? one might think you're associated with them in some way.

in case you hadn't noticed, all of us here are trying to seek the truth despite your presence.

please don't start lieing through your teeths. I have read every single posts from that AMA and your posts were hanging in the sewers of most sub-topics and casually dismissed when engaged by the sidechain developers

you are a fear mongerer who tries to stand on arguments that hold no ground and scenarios from fairy tales.

you seem quite threatened.

i suppose one could say the same for me but i'm not the one trying to change the system for a new for profit company i'm participating in.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:51:28 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:46:06 PM

go back and read my comments from today about this. there seems to be several reasons for a BTC holder to jump to scBTC immediately once a whale starts pumping thru the peg and the price starts rising.

you do realise everyday the economy grows your whale scenario becomes less and less likely

not at all. the real key is that a SC will be a nascent currency plus an innovation with plenty of potential. a whale could easily jerk the price upwards and then get follow on from other whales or speculators willing to be the new early adopters of a "better" currency.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:51:14 PM

and i'm impressed at what an idiot you are continuing to shill for SC's and your willingness to bury your head in the sand.

and why and how did you just happen to pop here on the day the SC paper was released specifically countering my every point and trying to denigrate my position by pointing to the Reddit AMA despite the clear and positive/upvote point count i got? one might think you're associated with them in some way.

in case you hadn't noticed, all of us here are trying to seek the truth despite your presence.

please don't start lieing through your teeths. I have read every single posts from that AMA and your posts were hanging in the sewers of most sub-topics and casually dismissed when engaged by the sidechain developers

you are a fear mongerer who tries to stand on arguments that hold no ground and scenarios from fairy tales.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:46:06 PM

go back and read my comments from today about this. there seems to be several reasons for a BTC holder to jump to scBTC immediately once a whale starts pumping thru the peg and the price starts rising.

you do realise everyday the economy grows your whale scenario becomes less and less likely

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:47:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:41:08 PM

i just changed my base case according to a helpful comment from HB. so what? it doesn't invalidate the rest of my arguments.

oh nothing, just pointing you moving goal post again. i'm impressed how your imagination can strech to such length to try and poke hole into sidechains.

it reminds of reading logs of the forum thread where satoshi first posted the paper.

and i'm impressed at what an idiot you are continuing to shill for SC's and your willingness to bury your head in the sand.

and why and how did you just happen to pop here on the day the SC paper was released specifically countering my every point and trying to denigrate my position by pointing to the Reddit AMA despite the clear and positive/upvote point count i got? one might think you're associated with them in some way.

in case you hadn't noticed, all of us here are trying to seek the truth despite your presence.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:41:08 PM

i just changed my base case according to a helpful comment from HB. so what? it doesn't invalidate the rest of my arguments.

oh nothing, just pointing you moving goal post again. i'm impressed how your imagination can strech to such length to try and poke hole into sidechains.

it reminds of reading logs of the forum thread where satoshi first posted the paper.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: dillpicklechips on October 29, 2014, 10:44:06 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:37:41 PM

in your base case, a 1:1 peg, there is no coin issuance, no block subsidy, so no incentive to jump boat

Transactions will happen on the sidechain and can charge tx fees, all of which are able to be converted right back to BTC if wanted. The only incentive to jump boat would be to use a feature.

go back and read my comments from today about this. there seems to be several reasons for a BTC holder to jump to scBTC immediately once a whale starts pumping thru the peg and the price starts rising.

don't forget other speculators who just want to use their fiat on an exchange to buy (pile on) a rising asset (scBTC) with significant growth potential.

dillpicklechips

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 507

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:37:41 PM

in your base case, a 1:1 peg, there is no coin issuance, no block subsidy, so no incentive to jump boat

Transactions will happen on the sidechain and can charge tx fees, all of which are able to be converted right back to BTC if wanted. The only incentive to jump boat would be to use a feature.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on October 29, 2014, 10:37:41 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:33:07 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 10:07:54 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:02:41 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 29, 2014, 09:58:22 PM

A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.

From the whitepaper:

Quote

However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics.

As a Bitcoin holder I fail to see why I wouldn't prefer such a sidechain to one that is relying on transaction fees for mining, other than possibly ideological reasons, which I doubt will have much practical effect. Fees plus token should be more secure than fees alone, assuming any value for the token.

The additional token may divert mining resources away from MC, causing MC to be less secure. Of course the additional token could bring additional mining resources into the network.

if you're a small miner now on the Bitcoin MC, and a SC with all the properties of my base case (with a significant innovation such as perfect anonymity) came along (now includes a sidecoin) would you stay put or jump to the SC?

in your base case, a 1:1 peg, there is no coin issuance, no block subsidy, so no incentive to jump boat

i just changed my base case according to a helpful comment from HB. so what? it doesn't invalidate the rest of my arguments.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

you know, it just occurred to me that when Austin Hill goes around to all the mining pools and mines and tries to convince them to MM all his SC's, he's introducing a market distortion.

in other words, he's attempting to get something for nothing.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 29, 2014, 10:33:07 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 10:07:54 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:02:41 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 29, 2014, 09:58:22 PM

A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.

From the whitepaper:

Quote

However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics.

As a Bitcoin holder I fail to see why I wouldn't prefer such a sidechain to one that is relying on transaction fees for mining, other than possibly ideological reasons, which I doubt will have much practical effect. Fees plus token should be more secure than fees alone, assuming any value for the token.

The additional token may divert mining resources away from MC, causing MC to be less secure. Of course the additional token could bring additional mining resources into the network.

if you're a small miner now on the Bitcoin MC, and a SC with all the properties of my base case (with a significant innovation such as perfect anonymity) came along (now includes a sidecoin) would you stay put or jump to the SC?

in your base case, a 1:1 peg, there is no coin issuance, no block subsidy, so no incentive to jump boat

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 10:07:54 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:02:41 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 29, 2014, 09:58:22 PM

A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.

From the whitepaper:

Quote

However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics.

As a Bitcoin holder I fail to see why I wouldn't prefer such a sidechain to one that is relying on transaction fees for mining, other than possibly ideological reasons, which I doubt will have much practical effect. Fees plus token should be more secure than fees alone, assuming any value for the token.

The additional token may divert mining resources away from MC, causing MC to be less secure. Of course the additional token could bring additional mining resources into the network.

if you're a small miner now on the Bitcoin MC, and a SC with all the properties of my base case (with a significant innovation such as perfect anonymity) came along (now includes a sidecoin) would you stay put or jump to the SC?

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 10:07:54 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:02:41 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 29, 2014, 09:58:22 PM

A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.

From the whitepaper:

Quote

However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics.

As a Bitcoin holder I fail to see why I wouldn't prefer such a sidechain to one that is relying on transaction fees for mining, other than possibly ideological reasons, which I doubt will have much practical effect. Fees plus token should be more secure than fees alone, assuming any value for the token.

The additional token may divert mining resources away from MC, causing MC to be less secure. Of course the additional token could bring additional mining resources into the network.

A Side Chain may be an instance where an additional demurrage token may be desirable. The Bitcoin investment has an expiration date so people won't leave it in, but will have some incentive to use the SC.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:19:48 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 29, 2014, 10:07:54 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 29, 2014, 10:02:41 PM

Quote from: cbeast on October 29, 2014, 09:58:22 PM

A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.

From the whitepaper:

Quote

However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics.

As a Bitcoin holder I fail to see why I wouldn't prefer such a sidechain to one that is relying on transaction fees for mining, other than possibly ideological reasons, which I doubt will have much practical effect. Fees plus token should be more secure than fees alone, assuming any value for the token.

The additional token may divert mining resources away from MC, causing MC to be less secure. Of course the additional token could bring additional mining resources into the network.

My message was a bit unclear. I meant to say as a Bitcoin holder considering exchanging my coins to a side chain (and choosing between these two side chains). Granted the effect you describe could still matter if I were exchanging a small portion of my coins, although I'm not sure my decision whether to exchange would matter here to whether resources are diverted. If not then I would strictly prefer the token version.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 813. (Read 2032266 times)