Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 833. (Read 2032266 times)

if i was a gvt, i'd fork the mainchain into an uberSC that employed a single beneficial factor over the mainchain, anonymity being the first one.  now, as BldSwtTrs has said above, all current mainchain BTC tucked away in cold wallets all over the world will probably be cracked open out of greed and some out of necessity and sent to the uberSC.  even tho the security at the moment might be risky, why not, as the paper has said that even in a SC failure you can get back into your BTC via the peg.  all upside, no downside!  which is it Greg, can we get back or can't we?

assuming the paper is accurate, mining will be forced to transition/follow as well, but that is where the security holes start gaping wide open.  as you said, attacks will made on the network causing double spends and loss of confidence.  also, individual hodlers making the transition now risk identification and hacks.  

now, to amplify the attack as the gvt, i would deploy as many new single feature uberSC's as there are beneficial features with a divide and destroy objective.  BTC and miners would be scrambling to different uberSC's they perceived gave them the most benefit only to be eventually destroyed by attacks as a result of less security for each uberSC during the transition.

this is why, potentially, all innovation should be done on the mainchain with the current security model, hashing rate, and BTC distribution in place safely tucked away.

What if miners migrate to the sidechain diverting mining resources from bitcoin.  Would this leave bitcoin exposed to a 51% attack?  If a 51% attack were easy, then some of the conversion transactions could be reversed, leaving an imbalance of coins and screwing up the peg.

Edit:  I guess mining would be more or less pegged too.  Miners could mine bitcoin, convert so SC and sell, at least as long as there was a mining reward.

not really.  i'm hoping and expecting the $DJT to go back up and make another high while the $DJI fails to do the same.  that would be a Dow Theory non-confirmation which has been associated with the vast majority of stock market tops over the last 100 yrs.  that's one of my markers:

In the same way that if all BTC are spent on trinkets from TigerDirect that means that no more BTC exists I suppose.

The 'two way' part of the phrase 'two way peg' means something.  Namely, that the impact of sidechains on Bitcoin in terms of economics is very similar to having a new slew of retailers starting to accept Bitcoin.  Yes, it could have some inflation as hodlers like me become actual users of Bitcoin (via fully backed sidechains) but the effect would be transient and ultimately very healthy in a number of ways.

i think we've identified numerous potential problems in different scenarios in the last several pages that need answering.  i'm not going to repeat them yet again.

From the paper - implies there is no risk of degraded sidechains. Also, that there is no real harm of a SC becoming more used than BTC because the side chain coins are backed by BTC:

---
Furthermore, because sidechains transfer existing assets from the parent chain rather than creating new ones, sidechains cannot cause unauthorised creation of coins, relying instead on the parent chain to maintain the security and scarcity of its assets.

Further still, participants do not need to be as concerned that their holdings are locked in a single experimental altchain, since sidechain coins can be redeemed for an equal number of parent chain coins. This provides an exit strategy, reducing harm from unmaintained software.

On the other hand, because sidechains are still blockchains independent of Bitcoin, they are free to experiment with new transaction designs, trust models, economic models, asset issuance semantics, or cryptographic features. We will explore many of the possibilities for sidechains further in Section 5.

An additional benefit to this infrastructure is that making changes to Bitcoin itself becomes much less pressing: rather than orchestrating a fork which all parties need to agree on and implement in tandem, a new “changed Bitcoin” could be created as a sidechain. If, in the medium term, there
were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure.
---

where the fuck is brg444 when we need him?

Yeah, SC is just Proof of Burn. Season of the Witch.

Great points

now that's a really damn good point.

If it's open source there should be safeguards to keep those things from happening surreptitiously. But then again, it looks like we are only discussing theory and hypotheticals as it is unlikely SC will even get as far as Ethereum as anything more than an altcoin.

If that's true nobody will have an incentive to stay in the main blockchain. Every body will leave the BTC blockchain to enjoy an upside potentiel without downside in a sidechain. That's really bad.

nullc, in pm's with me, has admitted that there are cases where scBTC can be lost on SC's.  i should've gotten into the specifics.

So in this case SC stands for Scam Coin.

Main reason that i prefer bitcoin, but i like in the same case gold because in gold there isn't same speculation that we have in bitcoin 

^^This is how I understand it - the owner of the scBTC is always in control of the original BTC, it's just locked. A malfunction/default/shutdown of the SC doesn't effect your ability to unlock the original BTC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following from a technical standpoint:

A SC only references that the original BTC is continually "locked" in the correct way. As soon as it is unlocked the SC asset ceases to exist as well (regardless if the SC network is actively functioning)

wtf?

earlier i was trying to conceive a scenario where the mining fees required to transit the peg might become exorbitant thus negating the perfect arbitrage.  what would happen if either BTC or scBTC is perceived to be in crisis and failing?  anyone trying to get out from the failing unit might have to pay thru the nose to do so as the miner would be taking signif fee risk with a unit heading to zero.

So basically, SC is just an idea with nothing fleshed out.

It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.