|
so did we get confirmation that the 7k buy was legit?
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is what I wanted to explain
And that is the correct thinking. Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of. Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action. As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway  Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  It is possible to use Federated peg (1:1 BTC) and create govSC with govBTC. (this can be done today, no changes to bitcoin protocol are required). This SC can be useful for institutional investors b/c they can feel safe as govSC is secured by gov. But this govSC will not allow atomic swaps between govBTC and BTC. => you must use 2wp to enter/exit. I'm not sure they would want the "exit" option |
|
|
|
How long until 400  |
|
|
|
lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
- fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
- Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's
another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
- you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet, you only have exchangeBTC
- scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
surely you mean the other way around right? You have BTC only if you own pKeys in MC. Otherwise you own only scBTC with or without scBTC pKey. Oh! Ok sure I get what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Yes, this is what I wanted to explain
And that is the correct thinking. Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of. Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action. As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA |
|
|
|
- Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's
I assume you mean Austin Hill will not "enable" gvts to start fiat-SC's Cypher doesn't realise that altcoins exist already. Don't spoil the surprise. |
|
|
|
lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
- fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
- Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's
another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
- you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet, you only have exchangeBTC
- scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
surely you mean the other way around right? |
|
|
|
The demand is supported by the "peg".
There is a profitable trade, people will buy.
If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC?
It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature. The feature matters less than the prices.
The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds.... or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might).
I fail to see what the profitable trade is. You said BTC price rises faster than scBTC so one would think people would want to buy scBTC at discount but then you say that scBTC is actually going for a premium because of convenience to avoid SPV confirmations. There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).
Which is it  If BTC price rises faster and you are holding scBTC why sell scBTC at discount to exchange buyers when you can use the peg to claim equal value to BTC? Otherwise it sounds to me like you are describing a regular arbitrage type play. Something only speculators would take part in and I honestly don't see how this can scale to the extent that BTC would lose significant liquidity. How do you describe it "unwinding". How does those waiting on confirmation lose? |
|
|
|
People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate :
scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC.
Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV.
No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism.
I should add to that : your movement of BTC to scBTC is offset by regular scBTC users buying from you instead of acquiring the scBTC through SPVing. Demand is simply fulfilled through a different channel. Your "speculative attack" does not increase the amount of BTC on the sidechain |
|
|
|
I've addressed all the reasons for my conclusions. Unfortunately they've been berried in over 200 pages of misdirection and personal attacks.
My understanding has solidified, over the week the effects will be slow than I originally thought and Bitcoins long term potential diminished. There will be inflationary effects in the SC and an undermining effects on security.
I'm a little disappointed but that's life. I'll be fine but I'm thinking if Bitcoin doesn't go mainstream before the proposed protocol change. It may fizzle as the FUD takes over towards the end of the next decade.
I have read all of them. But I disagree, my last post was an attempt at arguing some of your premises. Would you care adressing my counter-arguments? If not it's all good You are right that we've dragged this on too long |
|
|
|
^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.
I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far. I couldn't resist the cypherdoc bait. I'm sorry I'm done now, I promise. No more feeding the troll. I'll gladly entertain arguments with you gentlemen but this cypherdoc.. he's so dishonest and desperate  .. I cannot stand him anymore |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then.
The pump is a BTC pump. The scBTC moves because of the "peg".
Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure). The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg".
There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).
It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises.
That doesn't make any sense. There is only so much demand for scBTC. This demand does not change whether people get them through exchange or SPVing. For more BTC to move into various scBTC there needs to be more demand for them. Simple economics. People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate : scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC. Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV. No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism. The amount of coins sitting on a sidechain is proportionate to the amount of users willing to use it. Your "pump & dump" scheme, if we can even call it that, has no incidence on this demand. |
|
|
|
It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.
I have adressed your conclusions in this post this was one of your most sensible post and it seems you have come around to some my line of thinking. there are some things I take exception with though... Somewhat, if value is created on a SC that is greater than that of Bitcoin the Bitcoin stays there.
It is not that the value is greater but merely different. Sidechains serve a different utility than BTC. Some might value convenience more (SC), others prefer security & liquidity (BTC). Decentralized SC that function as a means of exchange and use merged mining will probably offer the most security miners will mine all viable ones and the difficulty will be in close equilibrium with Bitcoin. They can be thought off as secure as Bitcoin. I'm glad you are able to come to that conclusion as well. Some it appears are to shortsighted to believe this could happen. The users will go wherever it's most cost effective to exchange value, on the SC an increase in value is reflected in the price of Bitcoin, however that increase in value is attributed to being the biggest network with the lower fees, this increase in BTC value won't be reflected in mining revenue because it comes at the expense of sacrificing profits, leaving the network less secure. I'm having some problem with that train of thought. First, it seems to me that the increase in value is not originated on the SC. Some will suggest that scBTC are traded on exchange but I don't find that to be convenient for users. Who would buy a premium scBTC on exchange when you can buy a regular BTC and convert it 1:1? Therefore, it is BTC's value that increases because of users finding value in the attached SCs. Having said that, I'm not sure about the jump you're making about Bitcoin "sacrificing profits" and miners subsequently leaving the network less secure. Maybe you can expand on that? The SC that offer additional utility at a premium or greatest arbitrage will alow miners to grow and secure the network, that hashing power is distributed over the whole network, those coins that earn the most for miners, when this type of growth happens will incentivized to mine those SC, they will drive new investment in mining and become more secure. In this case this network will be growing and Bitcoin and other SC will be getting the benefits of added security.
Agree with most of that This growth is inflationary taking value out of Bitcoin, the market locks it in. I'd only consider the growth inflationary because that is value on top of Bitcoin in that scenario Bitcoin is dragged up but it's not the source of the growth. As stated above, I disagree with that logic. Bitcoin is the source of the growth because Bitcoin is the underlying monetary unit. Users will buy BTC to participate in this economy and access the different SCs. Bitcoin is never "dragged up". |
|
|
|
So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?
Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.
The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter. What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve" No demonstration is needed of this. Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right? By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg" The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived. Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there. If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue. Demand for scBTC is absolutely important to your "pump & dump". You argue that you will be able to unload a bunch of scBTC to fiat. There needs to be an increase in demand for scBTC to do so. Unlike with regular altcoins you cannot create "speculative" demand because the peg allows people to ride your "pump" holding BTC if they chose to do so. For that reason, the whole pump & dump scheme is ineffective. In fact, if people prefer the "exchange-traded" version of scBTC then it is possible that this could work against your theory : people would no longer convert BTC to scBTC but buy the ones available on exchange. Furthermore, the scenario is even less probable when we consider that fiat might become irrelevant with the rise of BTC. |
|
|
|
b/c the answer is not an A or B, it's not a 0 or a 1, it's not true or false, it's not either or, it's not black or white. ppl will make decisions based on shades of grey and everything in btwn. just b/c you won't do it doesn't mean that millions of other ppl with different opinions, values, likes, dislikes, views on monetary theory WON'T DO IT. there are plenty of speculators who will want access to prediction markets, just like keystroke. i might even like to play it out of interest or as a hobby. i might not care that i get 2 altcoins for 1 altcoin or vice versa. i might accept the fact that the altcoin might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the altcoin offers. you are such a lame brain that you still can't see this. that ppl come in all shapes and varieties with different objectives, values and interest. you're embarassing yourself with your black and white scenarios.
now answer my question.
You still don't get it do you? It is altcoins you are afraid of, sidechains is not your enemy. I'm done with you. You can consider this a win. You're just too dense and shallow for me to want to deal with your FUD and disingenous arguments anymore. I don't want to make you look like more of a fool than you already have in your own thread. Enjoy you win. But remember, sidechain are not gonna go away. They are a good thing and will benefit Bitcoin much more than any of your scamcoins can hurt it. Enjoy the longterm crow. (btw you never answered my question) |
|
|
|
you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC. and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1. it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets. you keep making the same error.
are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?
You're missing the fact that you accepted this scenario made no sense at all because there is no reason for the indepedent TC to exist. I, the user, only care about the 1:1 peg, I want no part of your floating price scammy garbagecoin. It is asinine to believe a sidechain would want to support two monetary unit that are not fungible. No use case for this, no incentive for any significant part of the market to participate in such an obviously scammy scheme. Wire this into your brain, the market is gonna be presented with two scenario : Sidechain A : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg as monetary unit. No danger of inflation for the users' stake : value is preserved through the peg. Absent of typical native currency volatility. Sidechain B : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg but for some obscure, unidentified reasons, attaches a scammy altcoin that is not fungible, offers no distinguishable advantage over the pegged unit and exposes the user to dangerous volatility that is natural to bootstrapped altcoins with shady initial distribution. Unless you present me with a plausible scenario where the bootstrapped altcoin would be of significant interest to the user, then your pipe dream scenario holds no ground. I will answer your question when you answer mine. You haven't, yet. 1. Why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? 2. What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins? 3. What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains? |
|
|
|
there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC. for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.
No no no. How can you still say this!? Altcoins can not claim the "risk free put" feature. Either they are altcoin or scBTC. Anyone will be able to verify if the peg is effectively 1:1, it doesn't matter what the coin promoter advertises. Advertising that you can switch between BTC & TC freely is no indication that the peg is 1:1. It is merely a decentralized exchange process between an altcoin and BTC. This feature alone is not enough to fuel demand for a particular altcoins. the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke. you'll see claims like "Truthcoin: Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0". it's all there:
So again your argument is a more elaborate scam scheme leveraging the "sidechain" brand and using an altcoin will lead to the demise of Bitcoin? You do realize such deceptive schemes can only work so much until the community of fools in general is better advised and has learn from their foolish mistake? The honeybadger doesn't care about petty criminal schemes. The market, with time, punishes bad actors and create trusted communities around good ones. Good money drives out bad money. Your altscams are in no way a significant threat to Bitcoin. They only threaten idiots and greedy, ill-advised investors. SCs are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue. once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today. you can't say that won't happen. you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again. unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC. it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg. if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv. they won't all fail.
this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's. Spectacularly wrong, again. Yes, speculation might guarantee SOME mining. Unfortunately SOME mining makes your stupid TC considerably less secure than the BTC blockchain. A situation already observable with conventional altcoins. So now we have two reasons why the market should and will avoid your scamcoin : 1. Inherently less secure 2. Proposes a scammy altcoin as its monetary unit instead of using the safer 1:1 peg Remember that no matter the feature your scamcoin will claim, there will be one created exactly the same BUT attracting more users because of its safer, more risk-averse 1:1 peg. Unprofitable Bitcoin miners can defect to speculate on becoming early adopter of ALTCOIN for block rewards ALREADY. Sidechains do not enable this possibility nor do they come with better equipped altcoins. If TC becomes popular enough = if ALTcoin becomes popular enough. History shows this is not likely to happen significantly enought to endanger Bitcoin's leading position. It does not matter how many are created, the majority of them will be as irrelevant and insignificant to BTC's value than any other alts. It seems you are still unable to answer these questions with clear arguments void of distraction and fallacious assumptions : What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?
What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
