Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 820. (Read 2032266 times)

I indeed hope it works out that way.

I agree.

About the 1:1 peg specification : it may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification volume wise (in terms of sidechains created) but considering sidechains would allow the possibility to leverage the liquidity of BTC into different chains I'm under the impression it (the 1:1 peg) is the likely candidate for purposeful innovation.

Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

Heh...yeah. The "solution" to that which many have come to in the past few months is to assert "blockchain tech is awesome!" while disavowing "the currency". Such confusion!

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future.  Here's why:

Lots and lots of people are propagandized into being favorable to the 'sustainability' movement.  The efforts which drive the movement are necessarily implemented at the government level and through public/private partnerships with so-called non-profits and such.  The key is that without the government, the objectives of the movement (which are many and varied and appeal differently do different individuals) are not tenable.  This translates through the neural net into the association between government and good.

The trouble with Bitcoin is that it is inherently anti-autoritarian by virtue of it's striving to be free of authoritarian control.  This translates into it being anti-government and thus anti-good.  AKA, 'bad'.  But the idea of crypto-currencies is inherently cool which makes a lot of the progressive techie types heads start to short circuit internally like that hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary.'  What do do?

Answer:  Adopt a different crypto-currency.  This allows the comfortably appropriate attitude towards Bitcoin (violently negative) while enjoying the 'coolness' of crypto-currency.

So, my thesis is that Doge will ride on the back of the herds of progressive semi-sophisticated 'sustainable' sheep, and those herds will be kept healthy by the powers that be (through mercury, flouride, public education, PBS, psychotropic pharmaceuticals , and a raft of other well developed mechanisms.)  Make some noise about helping some of our darker world citizens in Africa from time to time and the popularity could sustain indefinitely.

Of course nothing useful is useful for only good things, and Doge would be no exception.  Doge probably is useful and thus probably will be used for bad things just as is Bitcoin, USD, etc, etc.  But humans are remarkable good at forgetting why they liked something in the first place (when they even understood it.)  So this mal-utilization is unlikely to phase the adherents.

You are now dismissing their point of view on the same basis. I never said hearsay, etc. The Bitcoin brand is quite damaged from scams and more broadly impaired by being portrayed as a scary fringe idea that often appeals to criminals. That may be fair or unfair, true or untrue, but in marketing, perception matters. So yes, reasonably people see an opportunity to promote crypto while avoiding collateral damage from the likes of Karpells, etc.


Of course there isn't. Sidechains may be innovative (in terms of technology or otherwise) or they may be stupid, just as with anything else.

I don't believe the hope was necessarily to "kill" alt coins experimentation but moreso to foster the innovation (from altcoins that do innovate) and allow interoperability between them and the Bitcoin blockchain.

See this quote from Gmaxwell :


I believe the "good luck with that" is addressed to these "wacky" experiments.

we will have to disagree on the word reasonable here. reasonable people do not dismiss something because of hearsays, reputation and/or other users, they do their own due diligence.

I don't see how there is any innovation in someone creating a sidechain coin "because hey why not?"

Yes, I think that's probably right.

That's why I keep harping on the exchange-rate being definable by "any deterministic function". We're going to get all kinds of a wacky "experiments", and many may have the perverse property of effectively being their own completely (or nearly-completely) free-floating alt, while still technically being able to be defined as a "bitcoin sidechain".

Sidechains are being marketed as a way to 1:1 fix the full supply of a new chain to bitcoin, but the reality is that that's just one of infinite possible specifications.

Gosh, how awful.  Reminds me of the disaster when TigerDirect started accepting Bitcoin.  Some people probably went out and aquired BTC so they could use them at TigerDirect.  How did Bitcoin survive?!?

Word to the wise:  If you are 'invested' in an altcoin which does not welcome sidechains and is planning to migrate as soon as possible, dump it.  Before it's scammy management pulls the trigger and takes a dump on you.

Innovation comes from innovative people and doesn't cease to be innovation just because such people happen to be working on an altcoin. The fact is that many altcoins have smart and creative people working on their development who are doing interesting innovative things. That's not really a function of which coin they happen to work on.

To clarify, by many I mean in absolute terms, and even there the number is probably not more than 20-30. The vast majority of the 1000+ altcoins are worthless scams. Most of those are copy-paste and don't even claim to be innovative anyway. Some number are likely scams in some sense but also innovative in some sense.

Also, it is possible to be innovative in marketing and community building. Maybe you don't agree with that, but if you think the Bitcoin marketing, community, and reputation is perfect, we will have to agree to disagree. It is no surprise at all to me that some reasonable people may like and support cryptocoins generally but want no part in Bitcoin specifically.

yes, I'm seeing lots of comments from altcoin people asking how to use SC's to hitch their altcoins into the bitcoin network. That's just swell.

Why are we doing this again?

Sure, let the loonies have fun with their memecoin. The reason I'm expecting an "acceptable" or reasonable answer is to consider whether there is a prospect for innovation with that new coin.

I'm sorry but "identity and distinctiveness" is a recipe for disaster. It's all fun and games until people realize their assets are better invested elsewhere. I'll be honest I can't quite understand what it is these people think they have got going with their dogecoins but surely once the novelty and cool factor wears off they'll be looking for a way out.

In fact, just thinking out loud here, you could create demand (and therefore value) for such a coin by requiring payment of a fee in SideCoin to perform the transaction that will unlock real BTC. Such a transaction could burn the fee, increasing scarcity and value, which incentivizes more mining making the side chain more secure.

There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.

lol, Maxwell  cannot unlock  everyone's BTC from Bitstamp nor MtGox (I though, it is obvious)

Edit:

Maxwell brings new ideas how to prevent Karpeles from stealing your bitcoins

Edit2:

How to convert Central authority sidechain(MtGox-exchange) into decentralized (or at least M of N authorities) sidechain.

That's the whole point. You are assuming an "acceptable" answer is required. It isn't.

For many the answer will simply be "because that's what we want."

Many of the DOGE community want nothing to do with BTC and being a BTC side chain would be a negative to them, not a positive.

It has nothing to do with features or "need." They don't need to justify themselves to you or anyone else. It is more about identity and distinctiveness, and that has demonstrated a lot of importance in the market with the #2 and #3 coins (when I exclude Ripple and BSTX) being LTC, which have no significant feature differentiation with BTC, and DOGE, which has only a small monetary differentiation (perpetual maintenance reward).

I'm not in this group, but I recognize it for what it is.

you didn't answer my question.

From what Maxwell said, it sounds like he said he would be able to get everyone's BTC unlocked in case of a failure of SC.

No. Asking is leaving the argument open for an acceptable answer. I never said "You don't need"

yeah that was an embarassing quote   didn't come out the way I would've liked. of course I understand the SC needs to be mined but I got confused by smooth comment..

moving on...

I'm all fine with having arguments with you and respect your opinion but can we stop with the name calling? I'm no shill for everyone here and I've got no agenda.

I'm sorry if you felt disrespected by some of my comments, I don't know if that's the case, but I'm only questioning the motives of your scepticism. You do bring some good points but others are such a stretch of the imagination I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.