, most other altcoins market themselves with utility/features/different algos. These are the ones that will be made irrelevant by sidechains.
So you think competition in the cryptocoin space being made irrelevant helps free market driven innovation how again?  Maybe because innovators will not be distracted by having bother bootstrapping a currency on top of their innovation and will actually focus on the innovation while leveraging the BTC currency. Did you not think of that? Do you not see how it rids us of crypto-scammer that care more about getting rich with their crypto than actually driving innovation and developing better technology? but devs wanna make money just like everyone else. the altcoin is what monetizes their innovation. they don't get paid anything, per se, innovating on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, most other altcoins market themselves with utility/features/different algos. These are the ones that will be made irrelevant by sidechains.
but as we agreed very early on, anonymity and fast tx are about the only 2 features worthy of a utility chain that BTC holders will use and miners will MM and thus have a chance to kill off their progenitor altcoins. but of the 538 altcoins out there, only a few have these features. all the rest you can't build utility chains for them to kill them off as BTC holders won't use them either b/c they're inflationary or demurrage or some weird monetary property. all of these altcoins WILL bolt themselves onto the MC b/c the flow of coin is essentially one way and can only benefit the altcoin: BTC--->altcoin thru misleading, over the top advertising, whatever. whether you like it or not, speculators will speculate and the altcoins are gonna bolt on. |
|
|
|
the Dogecoin SC can be designed to carry scBTC as well. that was my original condition.
So fucking what!? Both are not fungible. There are two type of market participants : 1. Those that want to preserve the value of their investement. All they will care about is sidechains that enable 1:1 peg. Of course that is not the only condition for them to want to lock their BTC to such a chain. It needs to provide a certain utility/feature. There is no point locking your coin to a 1:1 peg of DOGEchain, that I'm sure you can agree. 2. The speculators. They want to be exposed to market fluctuation other than BTC's. These people do not care about 1:1 peg. It completely goes against what they're looking for. For this reason, these people are gonna jump straight to any altcoin. Considering this, it makes no fucking sense to create a SC with both a 1:1 peg & an altcoin. Either you are an utility chain or a speculative one. Speculative ones are altcoins and NO they will not succeed selling themselves with the 2wp because in their case, all it is in reality is a decentralized exchange. A feature that can be considerably more risky than a regular centralized exchange if the user wants to cash out during a crash. calm down and listen. a BTC speculator is convinced by over the top Dogecoin advertising (similar to TC) that he wants exposure to Dogecoin price volatility speculation. he doesn't want to use a centralized exchange. he decides to transfer into the Dogecoin SC via an available 1:1 peg that gives him scBTC in a holding position on the Dogecoin SC. he waits until the appropriate time to convert scBTC-->Dogecoin at his strike price. now he has a position. simple as that. there will be plenty of ppl who might want to do this just like keystroke wants to do with TC. you can't say it won't happen or that it is even a dumb move. it's all a matter of opinion. my pt is that SC's have done nothing to kill off Dogecoin and may have in fact strengthened it by facilitating the above process via the 2wp. |
|
|
|
you didn't even read my original post above about this.
what Bitcoin dev is going to waste their valuable time devving a Dogecoin utility chain? how do you even do that anyway w/o the Dogecoin itself? the feature of Dogecoin is the coin, idiot! that's the pt, Dogecoiners like the inflationary nature of the coin itself. how do you build that into a utility chain? even if you could, what Bitcoiner is going to use it, and for what utility are you talking about? inflation? if no Bitcoiners use it, then it can't be MM'd either.
Well captain obvious OF COURSE they won't. Why? Well maybe because dogecoin is a stupid idea to begin with. One that will die in due time. here's the problem. it's stupid to you but not to every Dogecoin holder out there. and SC's do nothing to make it die either. that's my pt. "What Bitcoiner is going to use it"  Are you out of your mind? THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. Yes it is possible to create a dogecoin chain. NO! it creates no utility at all. Just a shitty coin bootstrapped on top of a sidechain. but you tried to use that stupid idea of your "Dogecoin" utility chain killing Dogecoin itself. see why it won't work now? Bitcoin devs won't dev it, users won't support it, so your idea doesn't work. get it? So you went from saying no one would use it, to suggesting it would attach itself to the MC and siphon BTC You are right. Sidechains will not kill Dogecoin. It will exist as long as there are people stupid enough to participate in that coin. What sidechains will do is make irrelevant any coin that advertises itself with "utility" features (fast tx, different algo, anonymity) yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. Dogecoin will bolt itself to MC as a SC b/c it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by siphoning off whatever BTC it can get whether you think its logical or not. |
|
|
|
then they'd have to go thru a centralized exchange idiot. maybe they don't want to do that and they'd prefer to use a decentralized exchange process like the SC which is costless and potentially more anonymous.
No they don't. They can do BTC to DOGEcoin sidechain. No use going through a different unit that is pegged 1:1. But let me get this right... So the only thing stopping altcoins from taking off is decentralized exchanges? You have got to be kidding me.. 1. It is not costless. 2. It is no more anonymous than btc-e. Worse, if you get stuck on that stupid DOGEcoin sidechain when it tanks. It'll take you two days to break out the door. the Dogecoin SC can be designed to carry scBTC as well. that was my original condition. |
|
|
|
let's backup a step brg444.
you said SC's would destroy altcoins. show me how when they can bolt onto the MC as a SC.
Because a sidechain can claim their feature and utility without having to deal with their shitty native coin. Consequently, any scamcoin creator have no more argument to attract speculators to their shitty coin because of "growth potential" offered by their new innovative feature/algo It doesn't get more simple than that. you didn't even read my original post above about this. what Bitcoin dev is going to waste their valuable time devving a Dogecoin utility chain? how do you even do that anyway w/o the Dogecoin itself? the feature of Dogecoin is the coin, idiot! that's the pt, Dogecoiners like the inflationary nature of the coin itself. that is why they're in it in the first place. how do you build that into a utility chain? even if you could, what Bitcoiner is going to use it, and for what utility are you talking about? inflation? if no Bitcoiners use it, then it can't be MM'd either. |
|
|
|
Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.
that's the pt idiot. by allowing these altcoins to bolt themselves onto the MC, they will conduct over the top advertising which will attract BTC speculators to transfer into the altcoin via scBTC. just like IRL keystroke would with TC. sorry son, this is reality. get an imagination dumbass. this is exactly the problem you create with SC's. THEY DON'T USE scBTC you retard. Speculators don't care about the 2wp 1:1 peg, they want to expose themselves to the altcoin exchange rate! It makes no sense and creates no incentive for them go BTC -> scBTC -> Doge when they can simply go BTC -> Doge already. then they'd have to go thru a centralized exchange idiot. maybe they don't want to do that and they'd prefer to use a decentralized exchange process like the SC which is costless and potentially more anonymous. |
|
|
|
|
let's backup a step brg444.
you said SC's would destroy altcoins. show me how when they can bolt onto the MC as a SC.
|
|
|
|
Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.
that's the pt idiot. by allowing these altcoins to bolt themselves onto the MC, they will conduct over the top advertising which will attract BTC speculators to transfer into the altcoin via scBTC. just like IRL keystroke would with TC. sorry son, this is reality. get an imagination dumbass. this is exactly the problem you create with SC's. |
|
|
|
Oh look.. US markets closing on new highs while USD climbs  Who predicted that you!  |
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC. the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.
I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating SPV proof can save us from this disaster) you've stated before we may already have SideChains with 1:1 2wp's. If they exist the way they do it is by using Multisig and distributing N of M signatures in a secure decentralized and obfuscated way even if they use Merger Mining, this approach is risk free to Bitcoins future and the correct approach in my opinion. The disadvantage is you have to go through a centralized clearing house, or trusted decentralized servers, this could be done something much like Bitshare's Delegates or secure OT servers. (the risk of loosing your BTC where the code is honest and open is equally eliminated but the market determines of the value of the SideChain not the BTC Peg. it may always be 1:1 but if it is not its not an issue, it is a market failure if it unwinds not a Bitcoin protocol failure.) The above solutions give us decentralized exchanges, even corporate currencies, and secure user protected and untouchable BTC storage on nefarious sites like SR, the advantage are huge, and the risk to the user losing there BTC is reduced, to the actual fraud in the business interaction, (same as with SC) which will be mitigated over time with social reputation of honest players. Its only when there is a decentralized protocol solution that allows bitcoin value to move onto other chains that I see the issues that have been presented arising. What can we do to prevent this? seems simple to me, don't make the proposed Blockstream protocol change, lets use free market solutions. the decision to modify the source code to benefit Blockstream is in fact a political decision in a misconceived "attempt" to block out altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 platforms. if i were them, i'd be pissed. but as i outlined above, i think it will fail in the end b/c, as in most political moves to block competition, they often have the opposite effect. It's the resulting effects that would concern me, I can see how tempting a political approach could be given how confusing, uncertain and risky this space can be with all the 2.0 platforms and Alt comparison. as you said though, free market head to head competition is best. politically trying to block out competition while at the same time trying to profit from it introduces all sorts of self interested financial conflicts. head to head competition would force them to come to consensus on MC or testnet instead of using SC's. i view SC's as an excuse to do the hard work. there is every reason to believe the altcoins will immediately bolt themselves onto the MC via the 2wp as there is no downside for them. altcoins can't move to BTC. there is only the potential to attract BTC--->scBTC--->altcoin as they can sell the concept of a risk free put. there are plenty of current BTC speculators who are unhappy with the last 11 mo of BTC price action and might be willing to switch to a new flavor of altcoin thru the cost free 2wp. TC is just the first example. |
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC. the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.
I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating SPV proof can save us from this disaster) you've stated before we may already have SideChains with 1:1 2wp's. If they exist the way they do it is by using Multisig and distributing N of M signatures in a secure decentralized and obfuscated way even if they use Merger Mining, this approach is risk free to Bitcoins future and the correct approach in my opinion. The disadvantage is you have to go through a centralized clearing house, or trusted decentralized servers, this could be done something much like Bitshare's Delegates or secure OT servers. (the risk of loosing your BTC where the code is honest and open is equally eliminated but the market determines of the value of the SideChain not the BTC Peg. it may always be 1:1 but if it is not its not an issue, it is a market failure if it unwinds not a Bitcoin protocol failure.) The above solutions give us decentralized exchanges, even corporate currencies, and secure user protected and untouchable BTC storage on nefarious sites like SR, the advantage are huge, and the risk to the user losing there BTC is reduced, to the actual fraud in the business interaction, (same as with SC) which will be mitigated over time with social reputation of honest players. Its only when there is a decentralized protocol solution that allows bitcoin value to move onto other chains that I see the issues that have been presented arising. What can we do to prevent this? seems simple to me, don't make the proposed Blockstream protocol change, lets use free market solutions. the decision to modify the source code to benefit Blockstream is in fact a political decision in a misconceived "attempt" to block out altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 platforms. if i were them, i'd be pissed. but as i outlined above, i think it will fail in the end b/c, as in most political moves to block competition, they often have the opposite effect. |
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! Bitcoiners won't use them as well. ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for SC adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the scenario/mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge SC, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Dogecoin. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC<-->scBTC<-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with Truthcoin (TC). the exact opposite of what SC devs expect. i am NOT saying that Doge will be able to convert directly to BTC via the 2wp. it will only be exchangeable for scBTC. consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow defecting users via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Dogecoin block rewards, and tx fees from both Dogecoin and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those altcoins into the house next to our core engine business (MC) and sucking out valuable BTC.
I had a lengthy post written about how this was such a stupid, stupid post but I can see you're just never gonna get it. Enjoy your moment of shine, for now. Celebrate your ignorance bwahaha. |
|
|
|
...
Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing. Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.
If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.
I'd suggest 'lock' instead of 'peg'. 'Peg' brings up images of a cribbage board where pegs are moved around as needed, and that is also the failure mode of many currency peg schemes (I imagine.) 'Lock' is more indicative of what is happening here. BTC are locked with high security to back a sidechain extension. As always, the security is a function of the quality of the implementation of course, but it's pretty clear to me that quality in implementation will bubble to the top (very much unlike the opaque world of off-chain extensions that we have seen to date.) They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins i like "locked" too but the 2wp is effectively a "pass thru". |
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC. the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.
I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating SPV proof can save us from this disaster) altcoins are slowly being ground down by Bitcoin. but it's taking longer than expected no doubt. but it will happen w/o SC's. my only pt is that i think it's disingenuous to suggest that SC's will kill altcoins when in fact they may do the opposite by allowing them to tap into BTC by the 2wp. i know brg444 will try to say there is no reason for current Bitcoiner's to migrate into a Doge. that may be true for Doge but there are 537 others that might have just enough attraction for current BTC holders to do so. it's not the Sound Money Bitcoiner's i'm worried about; it's the speculators holding BTC that might migrate or even the ones who bought up around $1200 who think Bitcoin has failed them. I'm not sure You answered my question. ("What can we do to prevent this ?") and how NOT validating SPV proof can save us from this disaster => ignoring them will not allowing them to tap into BTC by the 2wp sure, altcoins could bolt onto BTC by using a custom 2wp via a Federated server as you're fond of saying but that is much different than systematizing it via the SPV proof (changing the source code). we've already discussed Federated servers are a centralized solution. by making it systemic via the SPVproof you can expect all of the altcoins to bolt on immediately as it gives them opportunity they never had before. |
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC. the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.
I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating SPV proof can save us from this disaster) altcoins are slowly being ground down by Bitcoin. but it's taking longer than expected no doubt. but it will happen w/o SC's. my only pt is that i think it's disingenuous to suggest that SC's will kill altcoins when in fact they may do the opposite by allowing them to tap into BTC by the 2wp. i know brg444 will try to say there is no reason for current Bitcoiner's to migrate into a Doge. that may be true for Doge but there are 537 others that might have just enough attraction for current BTC holders to do so. it's not the Sound Money Bitcoiner's i'm worried about; it's the speculators holding BTC that might migrate or even the ones who bought up around $1200 who think Bitcoin has failed them. and there are future generations of Bitcoiners who may think differently. i think the 2wp lets them get too close. |
|
|
|
|
as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.
right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models. what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction. really? who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains? who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation? who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models? let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! Bitcoiners won't use them as well. ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin. they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper. SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for SC adoption.
now, let' take it one step further. if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away? first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally worse for Bitcoin. i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC. let's use Dogecoin as an example.
let me very clear about the scenario/mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again. i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge SC, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1. there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know. there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Dogecoin. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC<-->scBTC<-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with Truthcoin (TC). the exact opposite of what SC devs expect. i am NOT saying that Doge will be able to convert directly to BTC via the 2wp. it will only be exchangeable for scBTC. consider that Doge already has its own security. it already has it's own brand. it already has its own attraction. it already has its own followers. and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin. it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.
furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow defecting users via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Dogecoin block rewards, and tx fees from both Dogecoin and scBTC.
you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do. i got news for you, they don't. that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that. in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those altcoins into the house next to our core engine business (MC) and sucking out valuable BTC.
|
|
|
|
Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan, it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a bad idea. You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce? Let's be clear here. You, they haven't given any piece of evidence whatsoever that SC's will perform economically the way you claim. And neither have I. It's ALL opinion at this point so stop talking pedantically as if you have. Maybe someone should get a third party economic analysis although I'd be skeptical of that as well. So I guess that just leaves us where we were before, trust the geeks and Blockstream to change the rules in the middle of the game for their own benefit . No thanks. I think we all know how its supposed to function on a high level at this point. Reviewing code isn't going to change that. It will simply act on facilitating the SPVProof, not much else. But like i said, it appears you guys have your own sense of ethical standards on this issue so by all means, proceed in that basis because you can and the rest of us will make our own judgments and take action appropriately. |
|
|
|
lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough.
you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.
What do you know about what are the readers thinking? You just know the number of views, not their sentiment. Maybe history will remember you for how much foolish you were being so stubborn in not understanding that 2wp SC can help Bitcoin move forward Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan, it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a bad idea. I'm quite happy with how bitcoin is and think what Blockstream is doing is conflicted and introduces unnecessary risk. I'm done arguing that. Breaking the link between the currency and its ledger introduces too much risk to the system. But by all means go ahead. Devs gotta dev and its clear they've lead the way economically for this whole project. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Sidechains are a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
