but 1BTC on MC =! 1 scBTC on SC in fiat terms. and that is the result of less security being on a different blockchain/ledger.
the equilibrium fiat price will be lower.
since you have such a hard on for the man Konrad Graf here is a quote from his paper : The particular SBS must then offer added value sufficient to more than offset these negative factors from the point of view of users. Let us the use then one of your favorite use case : The 1:1 pegged Anonymous sidechain. Let's assume now that such a sidechain is developed and after numerous reviews is vetted to be secure by some important industry members and other devs/coders. Remember it is all open-source and obviously long considerations and ajustements will be necessary before we obtain the correct product. Assuming we do, the question everyone will then have to consider is : is the added value of properly implemented and securely designed anonymity built on top of Bitcoin valuable enough to offset the POSSIBLE (but not guaranteed) issues of securing the sidechain and ensuring proper implementation of the peg. |
|
|
|
Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?
/argument |
|
|
|
we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.
i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.
well, the fact of the matter is we do get it. we've flushed out alot right here in this thread. and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical. abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical. i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest. he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid". nice spin Luke. i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this. these guys don't get it. Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin. now that's public service for you. one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin. maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes? Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now. this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.
It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem. The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features. I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is. |
|
|
|
I never said 10 years, but rather a matter of time. Also, I don't consider btc to be money.
 and you expect us to have a serious debate with you? |
|
|
|
I have read Szabo's paper. Maybe you could address directly what it is that I have wrong.... |
|
|
|
I don't care about the price of btc in 25 years. Technological innovation happens fast, and it's only a matter of time before btc is dethroned by one or more superior cryptos.
Yeah, cause people like to change the forms of money they use every 10 year right, no big deal, right MrBig I guess it's only a matter of time then for that new superior crypto to be dethroned, cause, you know, technological innovation happens fast. Or maybe the next one is the ultimate form ?  |
|
|
|
...
Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell. Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard. It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.
Amen! I've not been tempted to fire up a full client for a long time, but I will absolutely do so if I can see it helping out with this effort. Sidechains are to me one of the few things which has given me hope for Bitcoin in the last several years. I see off-chain stuff happening with exchanges and Coinbase like things, but these are generally unhealthy with the only redeeming thing being that they've allowed Bitcoin proper a longer lease on life. Sidechains could address the crisis but in a healthy way which doesn't lead to centralization. I just hope they can win the foot race against Gavin's exponential growth ideas for Bitcoin core, and I feel incentivized to try to assist to the extent that I can. I believe I have read that sidechains do not solve the block size issue. Do you suggest otherwise? |
|
|
|
The real problem is the lack of credibility associated with the reference client developers.
None of them are enjoy enough community trust in terms of software engineering capabilities and also philosophical direction.
Side chains do not fix this problem.
Lack of credibility amongst whom exactly? (Honest question btw) I don't see many people discrediting gmaxwell, peterw, wladimir or gmax's software engineering capabilities. Maybe I'm not looking at the right places. If that's truly a problem then we're shit out of luck cause I don't see any Bitcoin programming jesus coming out to save us. (except Satoshi of course  ) BTW, I'd truly like to have your opinion on my sidechain/fiat, bitcoin/gold parallel. Is it not an appropriate analogy? |
|
|
|
A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.
My opinion is a sxBTC value would not increase without first seeing a correlated increase in BTC. The reason for this is the sidechain in question is an additional value proposition to the use of Bitcoin itself and so the increase in price of the sidechain unit will be caused by an increase in the demand for Bitcoin because of the new feature provided by this sidechain. As you have stated, the sidechain is only applicable to certain areas of transactions whereas Bitcoin covers them all. The logic is : no one is gonna buy some sxBTC on the open market just to be able to do faster or private transactions. They are going to buy BTC and then use some to store wealth, some to transact privately, some for faster confirmations. |
|
|
|
well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.
Well to be honest I won't act like I would say no |
|
|
|
that wasn't a response to your admission.
it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread.
it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement. in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here.
but geez, you are persistent! you'd think alot of money was involved!
oh come on now. if you really wanna know I'm 24, I have a pretty shitty job right now and close to all of my personal wealth is in BTC at the moment so if for a second I thought sidechains would be a menace to Bitcoin I for sure as hell wouldn't be "defending" it. because indeed "alot of money is involved" you are right that I rarely show up to comment in this thread, that's cause I mostly prefer to lurk and most of the time I agree with the content being discussed here. but when it comes to the truth and fighting off misinformation I can indeed be very persistent. I don't think you're generally ill intented but I found discomfort and unfairness in your witchhunt so I had to address it. What I realize is most of your arguments all boiled down to misunderstanding of the new dynamics at stake. Which is okay, because I admittedly have made a couple of ignorant mistakes myself throughtout the argument. Fortunately, this whole discussion has been very educational for me and for that I am god honest thankful to you and everyone who has been participating. just to fuel your paranoia though I have to say I'll be in Montreal tomorrow. you know where Blockstream is incorporated right  |
|
|
|
no offense. but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts. you're everywhere with everyone.
you complain even when I admit I was wrong?  |
|
|
|
There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.
it doesn't have to be that way. which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion.  I know! But to be honest I couldn't care less about this. Scammers will scam and speculators, suckers and fools will lose money. Sidechain doesn't enable them. In reality it confronts them with the question I have presented before : now that 1:1 sidechains exist, what is so special about the features you are proposing that they need their own coin to function, because the guy next door is doing just the same thing BUT on a 1:1 peg. If they answer me like smooth believe they will : "because I want it to be so". Then F*** them, I'll buy from your neighbour at the 1:1 shop, there's MUCH less risk. |
|
|
|
I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."
Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.
The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation. I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth. no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin. the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM. this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC. they are not shared when firewalled off from one another. sorry, you are right. that was indeed an incorrect statement. the ledger is not shared between sidechains but all 1:1 sidechains abide by its entries. |
|
|
|
My understanding is a 1:1 peg is optional. And there is no mention of pegging the block rewards which would also be required to maintain a 1:1 pegged relationship.
1:1 is optional indeed but then the sidechain is no more a BTC application specific chain but a sidecoin, the younger brother of the altcoin. Pegging the block reward? I think this explains your misunderstanding. A 1:1 sidechain is not created with any unit in it. There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain. |
|
|
|
I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."
Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.
The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation. I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth. |
|
|
|
you sure are one desperate dude.
As much as I like to argue irrational conspiracy theories such as yours it is only right that I recognize those that are more reasonable in their use of logic and refrain from posting FUD |
|
|
|
I still need to understand how, to me it looks like using ones Bitcoin as collateral while one uses a SC's utility.
well technically this is what it is. but being that the peg is 1:1 and that they are utility chains that are application specific, their value will mirror BTC's. this does not make them fungible : as others have pointed out and as is properly explained in Konrad Graf's paper, various cost, risks and uncertainties will initially create a likely discount of the BTCpeg (if it were to be traded on the open market, for example). in all likelyhood though, market maturity, infrastructure reinforcement and arbitrage should help narrow that gap significantly in the long term. |
|
|
|
I'm going to quote Justus again  Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...
Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
