no contest, I win, right?  |
|
|
|
And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a bunch of people cheer, yet they do nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.
Sidechains are the ideal way to preserve Bitcoin's sound money ledger. Just because you don't understand it and think sidechain = altcoins+inflation doesn't mean that's not true. |
|
|
|
Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period
But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat |
|
|
|
I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.
The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.
There is still a chance they wake up.
Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that. Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were. |
|
|
|
your insolent behavior and insults have greatly exceeded mine. everyone needs to factor this in.
Sorry, it is my reaction to willful ignorance and intentional misinformation |
|
|
|
this is easily answered.
the scZC can "poach" its security from the MM and direct mining currently dedicated to Bitcoin. this is enabled by the 2wp. how does this happen? b/c it has to happen to protect scBTC that seeks out the same anonymity features that the ZC sidechain offers and that scZC already has.
 This is an erronous answer. 2wp does not itself enable MM. You continue to delusion yourself that somehow people would be interested in a sidechain that has scBTC AND a sidecoin. In reality, a sidechain with scBTC is what people are looking for. So if given the choice between the two options, they will converge to the obviously safer one that doesn't support a shitcoin with no utility built on top of it. The economics of such a proposition are so stupid I'm at a loss of ideas to explain it to you. So considering the shady SC you are championing will get no support from users then no miners will care to mine it because it is absent of any value. Bottom line is your scZC is no more secure than any altcoin. Any argument that you make suggesting so is wrong and based on fallacious arguments. |
|
|
|
To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, It’s my view that this is in debate when in fact it isn’t. Some considerations for MM SC: Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions? Possible, but doubtful. In any case, not a problemIs it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees? Over 2? Maybe. 1000? Not a chance. Refer to my post about the properties and function of money. There are not 1000 ways you can improve money or its featureIs it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined? Possible, hardly a problemIs it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SC’s then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain? That looks like some sound calculationsIs it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SC’s? It is not only possible but very likely. The problem with you logic is assuming they will stop mining Bitcoin complementaryIs it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining? It isn't black and white like that. Bitcoin has block subsidy. Sidechains don't so as long as miners can claim the BTC they mine 1:1 for scBTC they will continue miningIs it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power? Miners will MM EVERY chain that support any considerable value. It is trivial for them to do soIs it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope) Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope) Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners won’t be Bitcoin? Miners will MM EVERY chain that support any considerable value. It is trivial for them to do so. They will especially continue to support Bitcoin's chain until there is no more block subsidyIs it possible that when Bitcoin’s block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason) It is actually logical to believe and quite likely that 100% of them continue to mine it for block subsidy since it is trivial to do so and naive to believe ALL transactions would disappear from this chain |
|
|
|
i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.
as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement. i've talked about this for years here. how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?
if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing. who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?
 Sidechains is possibly the best thing to have ever happened to Bitcoin as far as its sound money property. It allows us to improve its money function without disrupting its ledger. Without sidechain you can absolutely expect more inflation/fractional reserve, more centralization, and more trust in central entities. Your analysis of sidechains has been a failure all around. |
|
|
|
this reminds me of another point i wanted to make, unrelated to your post.
i find it striking that you and brg444, SC's strongest proponents on this thread, are so far apart on your vision of the #SC's that will arise. brg444 narrowmindedly tries to pidgeon hole the #SC's down to a mere two in his future vision; anonymity and faster tx times. you, otoh, openly say there will be billions. from your posts i can see you at least have imagination and an expansive mind, which is refreshing in and of itself unlike brg444, and i happen to agree with you when it comes to your estimate.
so i ask, if there are billions of SC's in action processing tx fees, where will all the badly needed tx fees come to support Bitcoin in the long run when the blockchain rewards are gone?
You are great at selective reading cypher, really, really good. |
|
|
|
I personally don't completely write off cypherdoc's assertions that he only cares about the health of Bitcoin
this is exactly where i'm coming from. everybody here knows i already run my mouth even before this SC issue. so in that sense, i'm behaving normally. and b/c i have no conflict of interest, i don't care what ppl think of me. i'm just trying to protect Bitcoin. it's brg444 incessant counter posting of my every thought beginning the exact day of the whitepaper that is suspicious. My persistence is because of my duty to counter misinformation and FUD based on willful ignorance of basic concepts and inability to comprehend sidechains. You are trying to protect Bitcoin from shadows that do not exist. This is bordeline schizophrenia. There might be some risks to Sidechains but you are so far off them you are doing the worst possible job playing the RISK position advocate. Maybe take a moment to sharpen your tools and come back with something more plausible because your are trying to poke holes in something using arguments sporting even bigger holes in them. |
|
|
|
i'll just recycle the same arguments i gave above calmly.
when you say NO ONE WILL USE IT, that comes from only your perspective as a Bitcoin proponent who can't see past his nose. you ignore the fact that i keep saying that if the altcoin is designed with a fixed supply goal just like Bitcoin, it can and will attract speculators who will buy the same features that Bitcoin has plus anonoymity, but at a much lower early adopter price. yes, it will up to the altcointo attract mining. but b/c anonymity is a desired feature and b/c it offers a chance at getting in on a ground floor price of say $0.006/altcoin as an example, attracting miners shouldn't be a problem b/c not only will miners be getting scZC block rewards, they will be getting scBTC and scZC tx fees. and the scBTC will be protected by the 1:1 peg.
if this scenario not possible solely from a technical standpoint of SC's, then i need to know now, otherwise i believe i'm right.
See where this is going? Speculators can already buy the same feature of Bitcoin plus anonymity : Monero/Darkcoin But now with sidechains Bitcoin users have access to anonymity through scBTC on a 1:1 peg. So essentially there exist no more distinguishable feature for any altcoin/sidecoin. The utility is now available using Bitcoin and not having to expose yourself to additional volatility and security risks. Therefore, the altcoin/sidecoin have no more argument to attract users. Speculation? Speculation on what exactly? Future use? There is no future use because there is now a better, safer option offering the same features. You have to understand, as everyone here does, that the sidecoin booted on top of the sidechain is useless, offers no additional value for the users. The experiment of innovative utility failed to catch any traction with altcoins, even considering the "discount ground floor price". Contrarily to what you think, this experiment has no better chance on a sidechain. In fact, it is stripped of all its appeal by scBTC on 1:1 peg that can offer the SAME features without any tradeoff. |
|
|
|
why wouldn't a new investor buy scZC on a fiat exchange? why wouldn't a miner want to not only mine tx fees for scBTC as well as mine scZC block rewards + scZC tx fees?
don't say there is no one "using" scZC. Bitcoin's price started out at $0 when no one was "using" it. look what happened to it.
Why? Because it's essentially a new alt coin. How is the actual zerocoin doing? Any miners bothered merged mining it? The new investor can either buy the scZC and expose himself to all the risks or buy BTC and use the scBTC zerocoin feature pegged 1:1 with the risk-free put. Which one would you use? Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp. if the scZC is priced at, let's say $0.006/scZC compared to $342/BTC, i would buy the coin with the greater upside (scZC) that has the same anonymity feature as scBTC since the SC has MM for security with actual direct mining from small miners defecting.
He doesn't understand that sidecoin = altcoin.
He can't comprehend why there is no more incentive for miners to merge mine or smaller miners to direct mine sidecoins than regular altcoins.
He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment and make it possible to use new features : the essence of sidechains.
Or maybe he does, but he is so disingenuous he will not admit it.
This has been the entire problem with this thread IMHO. The arguments for sidechains (true sidechains with 1:1 pegging) are getting merged with the arguments against altcoins. Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential. But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins. The beauty of sidechains is they enable new features to be added to the Bitcoin mainchain 21M BTC ecosystem, while not requiring risky hard forks of the mainchain. This will grow the value of that 21M coins. I have seen no valid arguments against this. I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic
And it shows. You missed my point. It was not that I am not familiar with SC's because I haven't tracked the 100 pages here very closely. It was that I think the 100+ pages have mostly been hysterical noise. I understand your argument 2 posts up, I just disagree completely with it. instead of making pronouncements, you should get into the details of what i'm saying to prove me wrong. he is actually spot on and describes in great details why you are wrong. you think there is a difference between sidecoins and altcoins. there is a gang of people here who have tried to explain to you why there isn't in 100 different ways but still you refuse to acknowledge it. this is called delusion and you suffer from a serious case of it. |
|
|
|
but scZC speculators want to buy cheap startup anonymity coins at perhaps $0.006/scZC.
Monero is available today! Cheap startup anonymity coin, probably as much hashing power as your shit scZC and all the upside! Don't miss your chance! |
|
|
|
glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.
Answer this : Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put? BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC. get it? BUT NO ONE WILL WANT TO USE THIS scZC !!! GET IT!? It has no distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put. Where is the value proposition? What is the difference with just about any altcoin. Actually it is worst than any altcoin because offers no innovation that BTC users cannot get through scBTC. God you are dense this is pathetic. I don't know why I'm spending so much energy on your miserable attemps at FUD. You have cleary successed in confusing yourself to the point you don't realise the hole you are in. |
|
|
|
glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.
Answer this : Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put? |
|
|
|
how can you praise the idea yet reconcile this with SC's? in the heart of the paper they say their core assumption is that the BTC units can be separated from the blockchain. this is wrong.  because you don't understand their argument doesn't mean it's wrong. because clearly, you don't understand it. |
|
|
|
we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today. why is it hard to envision scZC being mined? answer: it's not.
how are they performing? are they secure? if you remove their attempt at differentiation from BTC with anonymity, faster block transactions or what not do you think they will still get support? not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going. why is this so hard to comprehend?
That has nothing to do with a premine. Why don't you adresse my question : Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put? who said there was? it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.
scBTC already offers anonymity, it doesnt need the shitcoin |
|
|
|
Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.
Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?
He is obviously confused himself and his constant moving of the goal post has him lost in multiple interjected erronous arguments |
|
|
|
i just told you severl times thru several examples. the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.
and I explained several times why you are wrong thinking that. you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it |
|
|
|
and i never said the scZC have the risk free put. only scBTC.
you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.
the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
