I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.
The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.
The bitcoins are always 'locked in' or paralysed as you put it when transferred to a sidechain. But the peg can be whatever the sidechain wants it to be. It can be fixed or it can float. If it floats then the chain is still backed to a degree by bitcoins, but that backing floats depending upon the value of the side chain coin relative to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Inca, what happened to your posts about how big money secretly is accumulating and all that other bullshit?
Haven't seen any of those in a while.
Finally waking up from the fantasy?
We are clearly still in an accumulation/distribution phase. No secret about it. Just look at the 100 and 500 largest addresses and do some rudimentary analysis instead of trolling over day trading whipsaw noise. |
|
|
|
|
BTC swap rights dived on finex..noone wants to borrow btc..
|
|
|
|
its seems like its going down down and down  It's the weekend, relax. |
|
|
|
The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.
I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong. Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.) When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network. The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage. Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin. It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested. SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value. I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain. SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across. To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin. We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely. I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain) Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded. SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me. I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value. It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology. Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere? Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine. But this is where an altcoin added to the SC could factor in. As i have said previously, a fixed two-way peg doesn't IMO endanger the main bitcoin blockchain as long as it is truly fixed. Where you consider several chains linked together via floating pegs then things get difficult to imagine clearly. If a sidechain based on an amazing new coin with vastly superior properties to bitcoin (USDcoin) arises which is linked via a floating peg to the main chain then I could conceivably see it causing problems in the long term if lots of coins migrate over and miners decide to move over chasing rewards. But I still think we come back to the same old argument that no altcoin has ever come even slightly close to dethroning btc despite numerous permutations in existence. I personally wouldn't be interested in moving my coins through a floating peg to a side chain, would you? |
|
|
|
Last time I checked the BOE owned nearly 40% of british bonds (gilts). Cost to the tax payer ? Nothing as the coupon payments are simply given straight back to the treasury. The net effect is simply expansion of narrow money into the wider economy through government spending (above taxation) to try and stoke up inflation whilst maintaining asset prices from collapse. Inflation is a hidden tax. There is definitely a cost to the tax payer here, they can only obfuscate that fact so people don't even know they're being robbed. True. Though I did say it resulted in expansion of the money supply to stoke up inflation. But in general you are absolutely on the money. |
|
|
|
I like bitcoin being stable, it makes people more willing to spend it. If price of bitcoin rises, let's say 10% per month, holders will postpone purchases because they will get a better deal.
Actually people spend bitcoins when the price has risen and tend to hoard them during price falls. If people hoard them during the dumps, what causes the dump? Considering we've seen a few big ones last months Speculators, mining supply, speculators, speculators, speculators and speculators. |
|
|
|
The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.
I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong. Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.) When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network. The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage. Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin. It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested. SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value. I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain. SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across. To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin. We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely. I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain) Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded. SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me. I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value. It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology. Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere? Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine. |
|
|
|
Price goes down very slowly... hope that something happen and price will rise up because price is too much low now  Don't worry. It'll go up eventually and when it does you'll be smiling you 'survived' this bearmarket. Even all the trolls in here want it to go up once they buy in. They just don't want you to know. Why will it eventually go up? Why do so many here act like that is a fact, like it's guaranteed. There is more to bitcoin than a price chart. |
|
|
|
I like bitcoin being stable, it makes people more willing to spend it. If price of bitcoin rises, let's say 10% per month, holders will postpone purchases because they will get a better deal.
Actually people spend bitcoins when the price has risen and tend to hoard them during price falls. |
|
|
|
...and yet difficulty is up and the number of transactions is at its highest.
Yes curious divergence isn't it. Something has to give  |
|
|
|
|
Citation required. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
I'm just amazed by the people who have been preaching "cheap coins" and have been consistantly buying every 10% drop since the ~$600s telling themselves It will hit $xxxx by the end of the year  It is all relative. Coins at $300 are considerably cheaper than $1100. And this forum is littered with people who patted themselves on the back for being right that bitcoin was over every single year before 2014. Would you like a pat on the back? |
|
|
|
You can actually earn 10% every fucking day by day-trading at margin, if you are good at it. Even if on average you manage to earn 3.3% per-day, you are still able to double your capital every month. Sure, this may work only if you are a small fish, and you can lose everything in a moment, but hell why not. If you are going to risk, make it worth it.
Come back and tell us how much you still have in your trading account in a year. Holding bitcoin is a pretty wild speculative punt even now. |
|
|
|
Just a hint.
China did not drive the last pump. It was hype and mt.gox.
China is much bigger than japan by orders of magnitude, both in economy and strength of character.
Amazing that both your hints are actually plain wrong. I am sure you have a wealth of personal experience and insight on both Well you can fact check the first by looking at the charts and corresponding volume from that time period. Do you really need someone to tell you that China's economy is not orders of magnitude larger than Japan's? |
|
|
|
|
Ok the price is going nowhere. Off out for a few pints.
|
|
|
|
Being bearish at the moment is reasonable if you look at charts and trend lines but the fundamentals are great, the USD will crash soon and there is a Bitcoin fan libertarian that makes a lot of money everyday, he will likely invest a portion of it in Bitcoin
It will crash no doubt. But when - nobody knows. US govs need a way to something to do with unpayable 20 trillion debt. But when they fool everyone nobody knows. So far DXY rises to be believed most valued thing in the world. Then (when everyone ensured USD is GOD) should be a final global fraud to cancel US debt. rofl, truly amazing.  these guys are so above everything. sometimes i wonder if its a lost fight. the one against reality. Whilst I don't agree with the initial analysis predicting doom and the end of the USD. There is some very selective charting going on from both of you People tend to forget that any bonds held by central banks from the QE programs globally don't really add anything to the national debt of the respective countries. They will simply be held until they expire. Of course it is banana republic economics but because it is going on all the Western economies simultaneously it is tolerated without capital flight. Last time I checked the BOE owned nearly 40% of british bonds (gilts). Cost to the tax payer ? Nothing as the coupon payments are simply given straight back to the treasury. The net effect is simply expansion of narrow money into the wider economy through government spending (above taxation) to try and stoke up inflation whilst maintaining asset prices from collapse. |
|
|
|
Just a hint.
China did not drive the last pump. It was hype and mt.gox.
China is much bigger than japan by orders of magnitude, both in economy and strength of character.
Amazing that both your hints are actually plain wrong. |
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100.
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m) no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger. this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two. In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain. its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth. initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325. bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat. Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325? look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE. that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less. that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots. Yes SC is LESS SECURE, but SC allow you trade bitcoins or SC will add diferent feature e.g. fast confirmation. The key is 1 BTC on MC = 1 BTC on SC Dream on. If it's a competing token there is an opportunity cost let's say laundering dirty coins or anonymity for the illegal activities. Then there is the SC needs an economic incentive to survive that erosion will degrade the 1:1 peg. Bitcoin already does this? Unregulated exchanges already exist, say into alt coins or BTC-E. No rush out the door to alt coins so far. |
|
|
|
<snip>
it's called "going down"
You mean gone down. What happens next is what we are interested in. But thanks |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
