Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 819. (Read 2032266 times)

1) bold above - I'd argue that OT is better for this than SC without the added risk of losing all the coins in the SC.

A Side Chain implies a chain (as in a blockchain - that is mined and runs alongside the bitcoin blockchain)

2) this is how innovation needs to happen, its ethical wrong for a for profit company to make prototypical changes for profit.

3) why change the Protocol, we have all this decentralized innovation in the pipe with no change to Bitcoin needed.

The conclusion I’m left with is, SideChanes will all become ScameCoins, at best they will inflate the utility of a fixed supply of Bitcoin, at worst they will corrupt Bitcoin by disenfranchising miners, i.e. the value of Bitcoin will be in the SC, and as reward halving shrinks, the fees will be going to the SC miners, Bitcoin may become the merged Mined SideChain - the glue that keeps it all together something you have to mine to keep the integrity of the SC alive. And the magic formula that made Bitcoin is eroded.    

The SC concept allows for inflation in that the peg, as it can be adjusted by a predetermined formula, what is missing form an economic perspective is a negative pegging where the owners of the SC have to add more Bitcoin to keep it going.

The answer to you decentralised SC is merged mining, and that is only achieved by incentivising miners with fees, the net result is monetary inflation backed by the Blockchain.  There are other solutions like Spin-offs that have no inflationary effect, I still dont see the need to enable SC MM at all.

Sorry for being OT again but I found that this thread contains valuable info about sidechains. Both gmxwell and Luke jr contributed to it with quite useful contributions.

Yeah, Doge is pure marketing hype. I'm surprised they didn't try to make it this years Christmas gift.

I don't see how the monetary features/economics of Doge can make it in the long run. I think it's a fad.

Doge could make it but I think Bitcoin is still a way better bet; Gold is a very good conservative (compared to Bitcoin) bet as well

well, we got it in place now.  let's see if it holds.  if the $DJI fails to go up and make a new high and starts turning down over the intermed term, while the $DJT has made a new high, we'll get what i've warned to be a Dow Theory non-confirmation which has been seen at a majority of stock mkt tops over the last 100 yrs.  i would be on high alert:

Just because Satoshi, after the cypherpunks spend decades trying different combinations of ideas in their quest for internet money, figured out the right combination first does not mean he's infallible in everything.

I think we understand why Bitcoin's proof of work works today better than he understood why it worked in 2008.

Namecoin is a mistake - it puts a price on name registry without having price discovery, among other flaws.

This is right explanations.

@cypherdoc
It is like lock bitcoins into sandbox. The rule, how to unlock them is written in bitcoin transaction what locks them. (creates sideChain)

It can be one of:

You can spend/unlock Bitcoin from sandbox
1. if you provide M on N signature
2. if you provide SPV-proofs
3. if you provide SPV-proofs AND/OR M of N signature
4. ... many more
=================

Then there are sidechain rules
 - conversion function (1:1 ?)
 - block-size, how ofen is new block generated
 - who will create block(confirm transactions) and how  PoW/Oracles/POS/DPOS/(authority audited by M auditors)

All good points.  It would serve the Altcoin Haters right if they become what they set out to destroy with this Scamchains BS.

The "There Is No God But Bitcoin And Satoshi Is Its Prophet" was never true, given The Founder's (PBUH) role in dotbit/Namecoin.

yes, of course. Forgot about that.

There being hardly any correlation with Bitcoin and a negative correlation between alts. In fact there is a strong positive correlation between alts and BTC and likely between alts and each other (because they are all highly correlated with BTC).  At least major alts -- I have no idea what happens with the flash-in-the-pan alts.


Most of those alts are dead or near dead, and many only live for a few weeks. The number of active alts at any given time is probably only a few dozen, and that includes some that have been around and active for years (LTC, NMC, PPC, etc.). That is probably an increase, but not orders of magnitude. Only a total of 27 alts right now have a market cap of at least $1 million.


There is evidence. The evidence is not only the lack of a negative correlation that would support the idea of alts being a threat or even a substitute for BTC, but a strong positive correlation. The evidence directly contradicts the crypto apocalypse theory.

You could construct an alternate theory that alts at up to 10% are positive for BTC but if they ever grew to say 30-50% that would be negative, but I'm skeptical. To get to 30% you have to reach 10% first. The likelihood of getting to 30% is much higher at 10% than 5%. In fact even 6% makes the "threat" somewhat more likely, which is why there should be a negative correlation, or at least not a strong positive one.

I have a alternate theory which is that alts serve as incubators for new ideas (both technical and marketing) that will ultimately help the entire crypto phenomenon and are therefore positive and useful. Any threat that alts present to BTC is dwarfed by the fact that BTC is currently priced for a <0.1% success rate against fiat and even tiny changes (for example, successful ideas trickling up from alts to BTC, or expansion of crypto adoption by alts with novel positioning, branding, and marketing) to that success rate mean far more to the overall value than the crypto apocalypse theory.

Could the sc miners be paid in txes fee only?

What exactly "is not what actually happens"? Alts have cumulatively been 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for years, or are you contesting this? The number of alts used to be <10. Now it's >400. Therefore, alts mostly compete with other alts for aggregate share of the crypto-pie...




That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.