as a user and a miner myself, who is losing money mining btw, i would use this SC for 2 reasons; faster tx times for my scBTC thru the peg and because it's protected by the risk free put AND i would mine the SC either thru MM or directly b/c of the added revenue of sidecoin block rewards and the associated tx fees.
this is called greed in action.
You really don't understand. I'm at a loss for words The sidecoin is worthless if people do not use it. As you have stated yourself, people will not use it because they have the option of using the risk free put of the scBTC for the same fast tx feature. For this reason, if you are capable of any logic, there are no incentives for miners to mine the worthless sidecoin. |
|
|
|
maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding? as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward. it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC. in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining. they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.
is this technically accurate and possible? b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die. if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.
!!! yes it is possible. but address this question : is this desirable for the user? why would I use a sidechain that issues sidecoin if I can use a sidechain with the exact same feature that works only with the 1:1 peg. who would use the "sidecoin" when he has the option of the risk free put of the scBTC |
|
|
|
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable? Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain. Ok, we're making progres. If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc. So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument? NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it. |
|
|
|
One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster tx time for scBTC, I think.
Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable? Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain. Users & miners have no use for the sidecoin as the scBTC is safer, more risk-averse (it has the "risk-free" put as you put it) |
|
|
|
Greater distribution of btc to a bigger userbase is what I was referring to. Something that is mostly locked away in a few people's vaults is not money. Money is used to exchange goods and services. BTC is not money. I'd describe it as money-like virtual commodity.
Nop. this is the flaw in your argument. Bitcoin is certainly money, the best and most technologically advanced form actually. |
|
|
|
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn.... miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it. exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother. a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well.  where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one. |
|
|
|
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn.... miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it. exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother. a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that |
|
|
|
Yes but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation.
except no one is using the sidecoin |
|
|
|
That makes no sense.
Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.
man you are stubborn.... miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it. exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother. a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to |
|
|
|
maybe. but i'm just going along with what's being advertised here. a well vetted, tested SC thru a federated system that is then brought online as a Bitcoin linked SC is "unlikely" to fail. given that, the 2wp is acting like a risk free put. maybe a call is a better term, i don't know. but then, my question about manipulation still stands unanswered. to assume a stable 1:1 price relationship of BTC to scBTC seems naive i think. there's always volatility and we see signif disparities btwn exchanges today that fluctuate sometimes wildly.
No it is not naive and Adam has explained exactly why. The peg being algorithmic, it creates even more efficient arbitrage. There are very good reasons for why the 1:1 price exchange will remain stable. You need to propose a reason why it will not because from my point of view and many others here it is clear as day. Clearly given that this is the best case confirmation time for bitcoins, and the peg protocol is algorithmic there will be effectively ZERO spread, because the algorithmic peg is an unlimited standing offer at parity (plus per KB fees) and is in direct competition to any market offer, and rational actors take the lowest offer.
...
One can look to other bitcoin arbitrage scenarios for a hint at how it works. Look at the spread between btc-e & bitstamp now that multiple people are systematically arbitraging it. That is a far riskier arbitrage because you are relying on governance and security management of bitstamp & btc-e in the face of 50% failure rate of bitcoin exchanges. Ok these ones are survivors and better than full history average no doubt but still there is non zero risk there and yet the spread is basically 0, this is because of competition amongst arbitrators. Compare to a 2wp, where there is an algorithmic arbitrage. A bot can take that all-day long at zero risk (using smart-contracts).
true, it's into the future. but how far? there will be a transition point and if a risk free put (on BTC) exists today, why not move a major portion of your BTC to the SC today and leave it there?
2140 is how far. Until then, block subsidy will entice miners to stay on the mainchain. Meanwhile they will merge mine any sidechain that will gain significant traction and value AND the mainchain. Your argument about smaller miners losing money and mining only the sidechain holds no ground. First smaller miners will soon be extinct and as long as the most important majority of the mining power does not defect there is no danger for the mainchain. |
|
|
|
Just check the top 100 chart, big guys are constantly increase their holding, regardless of price
That's not a good thing if it's true. explain Do you want greater distribution of btc, or less people holding more coins? A few people already own most of the btc, so if his claim is true, the distribution of btc is getting more lopsided than it already is. I want less. If the majority of the coins are locked away in someones digital vault then the price will be higher than if everyone had a more or less even share. There will never be a communistic distribution of money in a free market. Someone will always have more, be better than others at making money. And that's how it should be. All according to plan most likely. +1 but dont expect him to understand this |
|
|
|
I love that we have the internet just so that these idiots ignorance can eventually get exposed |
|
|
|
if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?
miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.
Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model but the SC would be MM. just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate. Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so. A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice. |
|
|
|
if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?
miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.
Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model |
|
|
|
Just check the top 100 chart, big guys are constantly increase their holding, regardless of price
That's not a good thing if it's true. explain |
|
|
|
except that the dynamics are different. the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.
SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time.
brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?
Possible I guess, but as stated yesterday I don't see the use case or why someone would want to put their coins on such a chain |
|
|
|
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage. I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC. Except that we know from experience that this is not true. MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC. Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better. Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO |
|
|
|
The Winkelvoss EFT is a dump. They bought a lot of Bitcoins, enough that if they sold them on any Bitcoin exchange, they'd crash the price. Now they want out. The EFT is a way for them to sell their Bitcoins, hopefully without crashing the market.
It's probably too late for that. They need a big supply of dumb money to exit this way.
If there's buyers what exactly is the problem? |
|
|
|
to be taken in context with the previous discussion, if the altcoin is more valuable it is a reason not to transfer back.
FTFYCan you see how no matter what direction you go your logic fails you? OK you have to go around the sun a fiew more times, Altcoins don't lock in Bitcoin - someone gets to spend them, if one fulfills a function like fast transaction speed and is adopted it's because of market forces. Actual value as at risk. and what has that got to do with the inflation debate? how does 1:1 sidechain inflate Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
to be taken in context with the previous discussion, if the altcoin is more valuable it is a reason not to transfer back.
FTFYCan you see how no matter what direction you go your logic fails you? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
