All things that will be gone soon? lol |
|
|
|
The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put"
Logical, you trade risk for benefit. but it's not even a risk once you've determined the SC is stable and not susceptible to a frank bug . and that's b/c of the 2 way peg, ie, a risk free put ripe for exploitation. 1:1 can also include fees and penalties. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just stop visiting this forum with such a negative attitude? Just stop responding is the first step.
It's not a negative attitude, it's called well-deserved mocking. |
|
|
|
We have not had a currency that was issued into existence for one and we have not had a digital coin with a standard.
Who would issue and standardize a digital coin? Trusted entities. I would be willing to issue currency denominated in a objective standard like a ratio to the rogers commodity basket index and redeemable in objective value like USD or gold or used boat parts, and I would be willing to secure a node of a blockchain for free. Who is trusted? Howabout Obama? He was the most popularly elected president in world history. He even has a Nobel Peace Prize! |
|
|
|
The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put"
Logical, you trade risk for benefit. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
We have not had a currency that was issued into existence for one and we have not had a digital coin with a standard.
Who would issue and standardize a digital coin? |
|
|
|
If you don't like the way the miners operate, start your own miner. If you find enough people that believe what you say, maybe they will back you.
That is what this is about, abandoning bullshit BTC in favor of something that can work. Wow. Start an altcoin. Nobody has tried that yet. No one has started a coin that works on different principles. I am looking for something different. Two Kinds of Money 1.The Scarcity Model: A single uniform quantity in limited supply made valuable by its own scarcity. In other words, the value of this type of money depends on the supply of, and demand for, the money commodity itself. Conventional definitions of money define money only in terms of this model, a "medium of exchange". Examples are: cowries, gold and silver, fiat cash and coins, bank credit, and now, in the model's purest and most spectacularly speculative form, Bitcoin. 2. The Abundance Model. A promise of something specific from someone specific made valuable by its redemption in real production. The value of this type of money is defined by the promised redemption in goods and/or services. As such, this type of money is promises of an indefinite number of non-uniform commodities in indefinite supply and, unlike the limited quantity "coin" concept of money, the total quantity of these credits in circulation does not affect their value, because the value of a credit is defined by what its issuer will redeem it for in real goods and/or services. Examples are: business-to-business barter credits, customer rewards, travel points, discount coupons, mutual credit systems. So what is different that hasn't been done before? |
|
|
|
A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.
From the whitepaper: 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. |
|
|
|
If you don't like the way the miners operate, start your own miner. If you find enough people that believe what you say, maybe they will back you.
That is what this is about, abandoning bullshit BTC in favor of something that can work. Wow. Start an altcoin. Nobody has tried that yet. |
|
|
|
vodka straight up... not for everyone...
i made vodka for a personal science project... it tastes like water when u done it right i bought this shit off the indians, it BURNS! pretty sure it more like 90% not 40% and its cheeeeeep! Paleface newbie. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't like the way the miners operate, start your own miner. If you find enough people that believe what you say, maybe they will back you.
|
|
|
|
BTC private key is a stealth weapon when dealing with divorce Make sure it's an encrypted key and the public address is destroyed. |
|
|
|
A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.
From the whitepaper: However, it is possible for sidechains to produce their own tokens, or issued
assets, which carry their own semantics. It's A White Paper, not The White Paper. I don't agree with the notion of independently traded tokens. The idea of a SC is to decentralize mining (whatever that means) and allow it to scale using present technology. |
|
|
|
|
A Side Chain must be 1:1 otherwise it's a merge mined (or not merge mined) altcoin.
|
|
|
|
but a scBTC could diverge to a higher price vs BTC. or it can be manipulated to rise at a faster pace than BTC. both could be a result of a speculative pump by a whale thru the peg. and why not? the 2 way peg in a 1:1 scenario acts like a risk free put. remember, it's all upside and no downside being on the SC. both scenarios would result in volatility and doubt about whether the SC is taking over.
i would be really interested to hear some of your responses to my posts in my thread.
Being the guy who first (to my knowledge) proposed this nature of attack, I'll just say that the first thing which comes to mind would be some sort of progressive use fee on the sidechain itself somehow. I anticipate using primarily sidechains that impose some sort of a use cost (even if there are options) mostly because they they can be used in a variety of healthy ways. As always, if the sidechain is not a transparent box I'm not playing. Actually, the attack I was thinking of was your simplistic form applied in such a way as to produce a resonance. The normal engineering method of dealing with such issues is to introduce some method of dampening. Good idea. The "use fee" could be reversible, like a deposit. That way, normal users are not penalized. |
|
|
|
Everything is correlated. That's why we use money.  |
|
|
|
|
Government can stop Bitcoin by respecting privacy, backing money with gold, and Unicorns.
|
|
|
|
How do I get Apple Pay to work on my Samsung Galaxy?
Its easy man. You just have to go to the pawnshop, pawn your galaxy and buy the iPhone! I don't think I could own an iPhone without giving in to the urge to smash it to pieces. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
lol gotta love the supernatural script writers
