well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).
You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset" My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC. So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain. but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated. but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC. |
|
|
|
|
brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages? No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC. In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right? But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above : 1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset). ..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me.. [/quote] well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC). |
|
|
|
Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.
I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.
i just want to make another point here. the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself. OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer. for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk. |
|
|
|
I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages? No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC. [/quote] In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right? |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted I don't get the 1:1 thing. It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes? It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses. don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside. the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC. as if that makes a difference  but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example. anyone know? and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses. I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly. Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be: 1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets 2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset). So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages? |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted I don't get the 1:1 thing. It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes? It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses. don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside. the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC. as if that makes a difference but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example. anyone know? and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses. |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted as contentious as our debates got, you have helped me crystalize my understanding of how SC's are going to play out. i totally agree that the best use of SC's for Bitcoin are as development tools for your "utility" chains as you call them. the only problem with that is they will only be applied and developed for those specific uses that help Bitcoin as Money. and as you have said, this will probably only include those related to fast tx and anonymity and those will be the only SC's that garner BTC use and MM. but that is very limited and highly focused. they will be devved out of the public good as that will increase Bitcoin value even while not paying devs directly. but that won't stop all the thousands, if not billions, of "companies" that will bolt onto the MC via the 2wp in an attempt to suck out BTC value. i no longer conceptualize SC's as blockchains or ledgers running parallel alongside Bitcoin's blockchain. i think of them as circles (for profit companies) with small unique ledgers within them that will have just as many different rules and manipulations that go on in fiat companies. think of the TC diagram. and they all will advertise with over-the-top claims to fame just like TC. whether or not BTC holders can resist speculating in these companies should require exceptional diligence but i don't for a minute believe ppl will be able to resist. in that sense i still don't think SC's are a good idea in that those highly focused utilities should be able to be developed on MC. I think what you tend to forget is open source democratizes that process and bad actors will get weeded out. that's quite possible but you yourself said the current altcoin problem is getting worse (?) i think it's slowly getting better but if we go with your opinion then its quite clear that bad actors aren't getting weeded out. as Melbustus quoted before, Poelstra and all of us have been more than surprised.
Can you present an example of such companies that will attach to the mainchain and how they would go about devaluing the units locked into their sidechain?
i think the #'s and types of these for profit are only limited by your imagination. as long as there are dishonest ppl in the world there will be companies that will attempt to attract Bitcoiners. i think ALL the current altcoins will transform themselves into SC's and play the "decentralized exchange" card and the "Bitshares, CP, Ethereum all wrapped into one" card. or "Bitcoin 2.0-Sidechain Enabled".
I'm sorry but TC is a pathetic example and an obvious scam that will attract so much suckers before it gets exposed.
ordinary follow on adopters of Bitcoin and even current Bitcoiners love to speculate. TC/SC Enabled Prediction Markets actually sound pretty good! i might even want to try it out. even if it tries a little inflation of Cashcoin or whatnot, if it enables features that can't be found in Bitcoin proper, then it will attract Bitcoiners who aren't too bothered with that. ppl think differently and have different opinions. i think it's important we recognize and accept this. Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run. I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives. and therein lies the problem. what is the definition of "legitimate"? this is the same question i asked 50 pgs back, what is the "truth"? as i've grown older, i've realized it's simply a matter of "opinion". sad but true. look at sad Obama. he says "are you with us or against us?" as if that the answer to that question is a legitimate measure of one's loyalty dedication to freedom. i hope you get what i mean. it's quite possible you end up right as it's open source. we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted as contentious as our debates got, you have helped me crystalize my understanding of how SC's are going to play out. i totally agree that the best use of SC's for Bitcoin are as development tools for your "utility" chains as you call them. the only problem with that is they will only be applied and developed for those specific uses that help Bitcoin as Money. and as you have said, this will probably only include those related to fast tx and anonymity and those will be the only SC's that garner BTC use and MM. but that is very limited and highly focused. they will be devved out of the public good as that will increase Bitcoin value even while not paying devs directly. but that won't stop all the thousands, if not billions, of "companies" that will bolt onto the MC via the 2wp in an attempt to suck out BTC value. i no longer conceptualize SC's as blockchains or ledgers running parallel alongside Bitcoin's blockchain. i think of them as circles (for profit companies) with small unique ledgers within them that will have just as many different rules and manipulations that go on in fiat companies. think of the TC diagram. and they all will advertise with over-the-top claims to fame just like TC. whether or not BTC holders can resist speculating in these companies should require exceptional diligence but i don't for a minute believe ppl will be able to resist. in that sense i still don't think SC's are a good idea in that those highly focused utilities should be able to be developed on MC. I think what you tend to forget is open source democratizes that process and bad actors will get weeded out. that's quite possible but you yourself said the current altcoin problem is getting worse (?) i think it's slowly getting better but if we go with your opinion then its quite clear that bad actors aren't getting weeded out. as Melbustus quoted before, Poelstra and all of us have been more than surprised.
Can you present an example of such companies that will attach to the mainchain and how they would go about devaluing the units locked into their sidechain?
i think the #'s and types of these for profit are only limited by your imagination. as long as there are dishonest ppl in the world there will be companies that will attempt to attract Bitcoiners. i think ALL the current altcoins will transform themselves into SC's and play the "decentralized exchange" card and the "Bitshares, CP, Ethereum all wrapped into one" card. or "Bitcoin 2.0-Sidechain Enabled".
I'm sorry but TC is a pathetic example and an obvious scam that will attract so much suckers before it gets exposed.
ordinary follow on adopters of Bitcoin and even current Bitcoiners love to speculate. TC/SC Enabled Prediction Markets actually sound pretty good! i might even want to try it out. even if it tries a little inflation of Cashcoin or whatnot, if it enables features that can't be found in Bitcoin proper, then it will attract Bitcoiners who aren't too bothered with that. ppl think differently and have different opinions. i think it's important we recognize and accept this. |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted as contentious as our debates got, you have helped me crystalize my understanding of how SC's are going to play out. i totally agree that the best use of SC's for Bitcoin are as development tools for your "utility" chains as you call them. the only problem with that is they will only be applied and developed for those specific uses that help Bitcoin as Money. and as you have said, this will probably only include those related to fast tx and anonymity and those will be the only SC's that garner BTC use and MM. but that is very limited and highly focused. they will be devved out of the public good as that will increase Bitcoin value even while not paying devs directly. but that won't stop all the thousands, if not billions, of "companies", including those with altcoins, that will bolt onto the MC via the 2wp in an attempt to suck out BTC value. i no longer conceptualize SC's as blockchains or ledgers running parallel alongside Bitcoin's blockchain. i think of them as circles (for profit companies) with small unique ledgers within them that will have just as many different rules and manipulations that go on in fiat companies. think of the TC diagram. and they all will advertise with over-the-top claims to fame just like TC. whether or not BTC holders can resist speculating in these companies should require exceptional diligence but i don't for a minute believe ppl will be able to resist as they will all be advertised as decentralized. in that sense, considering speculation, i still don't think SC's are a good idea in that those 2 highly focused utilities should be able to be developed on MC. |
|
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
|
|
|
|
so beautiful. this is one of those "get on now or risk being left behind forever" moments.  |
|
|
|
Ugh - looks interesting... I really don't have time for this tonight. I *almost* (not really) miss the days when I could read/watch the past week's worth of mainstream bitcoin coverage in 10 minutes. yeah, me too. had to stop. but i will listen eventually mainly b/c of Susan Athey. she really understands the importance of the SOV aspect of Bitcoin. not too many of those around these days. |
|
|
|
so you've been snooping on our sidechains debate all along heh Based on the occasional snide comments I see posted in other parts of the 'net, lots of people are watching this thread without commenting. so I'm famous now   like i said, you should apply for a job.  |
|
|
|
Sidechains irrelevant, Bitcoin UP.
this could very well be true. in that case, why change anything? And what if the rally is being fueled by the understanding of sidechains, thanks to the debate of this thread? ;-) or maybe fuelled by the understanding that SC's won't be enacted, thanks to the debate of this thread? |
|
|
|
Sidechains irrelevant, Bitcoin UP.
this could very well be true. in that case, why change anything? |
|
|
|
...so it annoys me when you folks try to fuck it up ...
Define, please. when tvbcof gets mad, he just gets mad at everyone. |
|
|
|
like i keep sayin'. oil? who the hell needs oil?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
