I am also done arguing with you. You have conveniently avoided most of my posts and have responded to none of my questions. Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post 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?
Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words. if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. this is where dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money.
We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply. Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted. Can you address that with sound, reasonable arguments? |
|
|
|
basically your problem comes down to this: you think you can control speculation by using SC's. i think you are very wrong on this. altcoin devs are going to have a field day with SC's of all types: corporations, banks, reward programs. hell, even Austin Hill wants gvts to have one. Jack Liu has all sorts of ideas too: http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-comingmy arguments have pidgeon holed you down to a scenario that HAS to play out for SC's to work as you envision: 2 utility chains for fast txs and anonynity with 100% MM and NO SPECULATIVE SC's. that expectation of yours is ludicrous. we already have TC and keystroke IRL examples of what's coming. we have the whitepaper talking about Freicoin demurrage coin, section 5.2 Issued assets, pg 15 talks about complementary currencies, pg 16: Subsidy.
A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively
forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result
would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.these are all coming with SC's yet you persist with your delusions. I don't think I can control it, I'm arguing the market will go for the safest, most risk-averse options. I believe I am the one who has pidgeon holed the other by effectively confirming that all of your risk scenario are already possible through altcoins but have not materialized. You continue to dodge my arguments because I don't believe you have an answer to them You're afraid of altcoins, but altcoins already exist. You assume I think only non-speculative sidechains will be created when in fact I'm only arguing that now that it is possible to create them, altcoins are severely incapacitated and will not prevail in a market looking to preserve the value of its assets. The network effect will continue to work in BTC's favors. Idiots and fools might fall victim to more elaborated schemes through the use of sidechains but bad actors can only stay in business so long and eventually community supported/vetted alternatives suceed. Leaving the scammers in the dirt. You're shallowness and blind ego is your downfall. |
|
|
|
what makes you say that? why don't you ask keystroke why he would gladly do it?
I do not pretend to have the power of making insinuations out of keystroke's post and pretend to know his intentions the way you have been doing for the last couple of pages. Of course it was expected of you to jump on a 10 word sentence and twist it to fit your argument. no it's not. NL just explained to you a decapitation attack which i think is a reasonable concern for a new risk created by SC's
The "decapitation" attack is very much theoretical and sound to me just like another scam scheme that can be avoided by proper due diligence of the user. I fail to see how this become a potential bitcoin-killer. There are only so many fools. there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC. the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke. unprofitable miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.
Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post 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?
Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words. if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. this is where dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money.
We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply. Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted. |
|
|
|
you're missing the point again. TC is probably going to maintain the 1:1 peg. if not, i would advise them to do so to fool ppl like you who don't understand what's going on so that you can still get fleeced by being tempted to trade 1scBTC for perhaps an inflationary 2TC.
In fact YOU are the one missing the point. Point being that sidechains do not enable altcoins. In fact they considerably incapacitate their "raison d'ętre" by making their inflationary coins dispensable. |
|
|
|
you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.
 that's what is so funny. sidechains are going to happen, they are gonna help bring Bitcoin to the next level, and there is nothing you can do about it  enjoy that crow for the rest of your life |
|
|
|
you're missing the point again. TC is probably going to maintain the 1:1 peg. if not, i would advise them to do so to fool ppl like you who don't understand what's going on so that you can still get fleeced by being tempted to trade 1scBTC for perhaps an inflationary 2TC.
Man it takes some audacity to come up with the stupidity you do on a regular basis. How exactly is the market fleeced into trading into an inflationary secondary sidechain when they already declined this proposition at first. You do realise that... 1 BTC > 2 sc(1)BTC is the same as 1 BTC > 1 sc(1)BTC> 2 sc(2)BTC ... is the same right? If the user is concerned with the conservation of his value, what scenario do you suggest that would have him change his mind once on sc(1). This is so preposterous. It really is tragic how clueless you are. I couldn't care less who he is, he was wrong in his assumption (reasonable at the time) that this was a threat to Bitcoin. so much disrespect for so many ahead of and more experienced than you. you said this: Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right.
you completely ignore that there is no sign of his being proven wrong either. lol.  But there absolutely is. Network effect has shown to be too important for such a thing to happen. The reason he is proven wrong is because the market, in almost 3 years, has shown no desire for diversification of currencies. No competitor has shown itself valuable enough that its feature would compete with Bitcoin's network effect. |
|
|
|
seriously brg444, you have go me laughing so hard right now at your ludicrousy my wife thinks something is wrong.
i am literally in tears:
I love that I have turned yourself into a troll unable to realize the foolishness of his position and piggybacking off others argument to support your desperate stance. I can tell that your credibility has taken a shot since this all began. Maybe this is what is making you lose reason? |
|
|
|
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" |
|
|
|
why do we get this from Poelstra?
You might want to read the "purpose" section of this document. This is effectively a PSA against the danger of altcoins creation & adoption. It is essentially there to discourage people with ill-intented ideas from participating in such activities. I read this as a "PROCEED WITH CAUTION". Andrew expresses his disappointement in the travesty that has become the creation of crypto-money. A vocation once fueled by motives like innovation and advancement of cryptography has turned into a gimmick full of scams, speculation and just to drive the point home : memes. With the advent of sidechains Andrew and the team incapacitate altcoins by removing the #1 argument they are using to lure foolish investors into their scheme : innovation. Innovation is no more reserved to sidechains. This notion is also why scams like your own's favorite Truthcoin are now at least half less likely to succeed. The reason it is so is because a clone that offers the same features/innovation while respecting the 1:1 peg will be created. Provided with that risk free option, the market will inevitably favor the option that preserves the value of their investment by recognizing their stake in the primary ledger/mainchain. And where the market goes, the miners goes. the reason it hasn't happened is b/c the only coin that has been MM'd on top of Bitcoin has been Namecoin out of public service. so no, the guys conclusions are not wrong or invalidated. btw, that's dooglus aka Chris Moore, a very talented Bitcoin early adopter who if you take the time to look is a MAJOR contributor #8 in reputation, right up there behind Pieter Wiullie, in total rankings to Bitcoin Stack Exchange and our understanding of what Bitcoin is, so fuck off:
I couldn't care less who he is, he was wrong in his assumption (reasonable at the time) that this was a threat to Bitcoin. 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? |
|
|
|
Here is where you are flatly wrong. There clearly is an incentive, the time incentive.
To change BTC to scBTC, you will have to wait for 100 blocks or so, whatever the confirmation time may be.
If you buy them at exchange, there is no wait.
This confirmation exchange value is created in both ways in the transaction. People will pay a premium for time, localbitcoin pricing is evidence enough of this.
But you are assuming that there is an incremental demand for the scBTC, whatever its utility is. This is not necessarily the case. You need someone to buy all those scBTC you want to dump for fiat. Since BTC & scBTC price are correlated one does not need to buy scBTC to "ride your pump" |
|
|
|
The liquidity is the ease with which you can part with your money. In the conversion from sidecoin to bitcoin, even if it is full reserve, there will be some resistance, some has talked about a delay of 2 days. It has to be at least the sum of the confirmation times of each chain. Therefore the sidecoins will have some less liquidity (it goes both ways, but since bitcoin starts out with the best liquidity, it is a problem for the sidecoin). The result is that the sidecoin usage can reach some level due to added functionality, but the lower liquidity, which should normally give it a lower value, will, with the pegging presumption, give it a lower usage. Some sidecoins will exist because they are practical, but they will not take off.
This is a very good explanation of why NL's speculative attack is not plausible although I disagree with you end argument that "utility" sidechains cannot take off. Lower usage (than BTC) does not necessarily translate in no usage at all. That said, this effectively support Adrian's comments that SC with biggest network will discourage use of similarly featured/competing clones. |
|
|
|
The other reason they might mm or direct mine Truthcoin is out of ignorance. Not everyone has got this figured out you know. Just look at the disagreements we"re having here on what's happening.
 How many altcoins are MM "out of ignorance"? |
|
|
|
First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger.
But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all?
I suggest you read Adrian's very good post that indicate valuable utility SC will be MM at possibly the same hashing power than BTC. |
|
|
|
No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.
That scheme has been available to altcoins every since the introduction of merged-mining. |
|
|
|
In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges. No BTC is sold to the market. Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).
Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.
There is no peg.
There is no spoon.
Here is what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario : If, as you say, people believe in the peg (which they absolutely should) then they will not buy your scBTC. In reality, the market has no incentive to purchase your scBTC over BTC if they are the same price. The reason for this? Well you have suggested it yourself : the "block delay in spend-ability". What makes the best money? The most cost effective and versatile exchangeable asset. BTC is more easily exchangeable with fiat (because of liquidity) and other scBTCs than scBTC is and is also more cost-effective at doing so. No matter the 1:1 fiat peg, BTC is a more desirable unit than scBTC. BTC has better fungibility and liquidity in the economy than scBTC. |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that. again, no substance or imagination from you: Again you show your lack of depth My comment was not about the feasibility of this scheme. It was simply an observation of the stupidity of such a remark. Classic desperate and disingenous proclamation on your part. When has Bitcoin ever had to explain itself "to the Fed"? How do you suggest that happen? |
|
|
|
Thank you for making my point! You are exactly what I was looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin! And they said it won't happen Answer: it might not be a scam! But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition . I'm sorry but you have sorely misunderstood the gist of the comment in the link you posted. Worse, you mistakingly figured it would support your arguments. Merged-mining, the way it was described in this comment, is essentally supporting multiple competing currencies : altcoinsNow sidechains, as I hope you have come to understand from our discussions, do not enable altcoins in any significant way. The primary use case of sidechains is not to bootstrap altcoins on top of them. In fact, to most of the Blockstream developers (from comments read), this mere notion is absurd. Sidechains were not created to "go to war & destroy" altcoins as you might like to think. In reality, altcoins are simply made irrelevant. While you seem to have problem with "devs dev-ing" this is what they do : use technology to improve processes. Did the Blockstream guys dislike scammy alts? Of course, everyone does. Did they find important to leverage altcoins' innovation to improve the Bitcoin ecosystem? My opinion is this is the idea here. At any given time there is a certain amount of demand for a Bitcoin like currency to make transactions. That need doesn’t increase with more competition. That means that the transactional demand for Bitcoin is really the same as the transactional demand for all substantially similar forms of payment. As more currencies are competing to fill the same demand they actually reduce the demand for the other currencies as they become more widely used. This theory is blatantly ignorant of network effect. This is another reason why I found it strange for you to pull this one up from the 2012 cementary where it belong.. You do realize this guy is the 2012 version of you Essentially, his proposition is that because of merged-mining, Bitcoins' competing currencies will leverage the security of the network and create a race to the bottom for the most "cost-effective" currency. Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right. Additionally, Bitcoin's network effect has been growing along, making it even less probable. |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that. |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
Sidechains are Bitcoin's fiat.
Like Bitcoin improved on gold, sidechains improve on fiat.
That I disagree with. Sidechains are a lot more like $20 gold pieces under a gold-backed national monetary regime. These coins may be 'legal tender' (enforceable as payment for all debts under a legal framework) but they also have very solid utility absent the legal structures which characterize their status as 'fiat'. They can be melted. In this parallel, destroying Bitcoin's fungibility (through, say, network infrastructure control and subsequent red-listing) is equivalent to figuring out the alchemy needed to turn lead into gold. Maybe choice of words wasn't right but I was thinking of fiat in terms of paper currency as legal tender for gold. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
