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. i've answered every non answer you've brought up. you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it
it's possible but i don't think so. |
|
|
|
but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC. therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins. sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.
No, the sidecoin is only MM if there is value in it. The comparison to Bitcoin is asinine. Bitcoin had no competition. There was no choice for miners or better use of their resource we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today. why is it hard to envision scZC being mined? answer: it's not. Bitcoin started of at $0. "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.
If it's only mined by its dev than it make it a HUGE security risk. Exactly like any other altcoins. Again, no one wants to store their value on extremely volatile sidecoins that are considerably more risky, less secure and have no distinct feature. 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? the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.
there is no risk free put on the scZC 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. |
|
|
|
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 ?
i have no altcoin investments and i don't have any equity investments any Bitcoin companies or altcoins companies. i have no conflict of interest as i've already stated whatsoever. but you already read that, didn't you? i actually would like to propose that perhaps you and brg444 are paid shills? no ones given me any good arguments to mine that i've seen. all i see are pronouncements and misleading allegations. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
and i never said the scZC have the risk free put. only scBTC.
you're purposely misrepresenting my arguments.
|
|
|
|
what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM. if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?
Here is the fundamental problem/misunderstanding in your argument. Sidecoins have no risk free put. Only 1:1 scBTC have. This is precisely why there will be no interest to invest in a sidecoin when there is a scBTC that offers the same feature AND the risk-free put what's wrong with you? why do you keep trying to ascribe that "misunderstanding" to me? anyone following this knows i know only scBTC have the 1:1 peg. i'm beginning to think you're a shill here despite your denial. the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC. since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value. if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC. miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.
btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance!
care to tell me the difference between scZC and Monero? 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. |
|
|
|
so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue?
The argument is here : Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature. Can you argue this is not plausible? but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC. therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins. sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins. any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC. i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it.
Yes you did, right here : and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.
This suggest before scZC establish considerable value there is no incentive for miners to MM or mine them Bitcoin started of at $0. "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going. the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.
 You realise this goes against every one of your arguments. Indeed, the scBTC defeats every reason to put anyone's value anywhere else because of the risk free put. The risk free put doesn't exist on the shitsidecoin fixed it. |
|
|
|
mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC. it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.
So you're saying altcoins are going to take over because it is potentially easier to transfer BTC to sidechains than it is to buy them on exchange? That's not a very good argument what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM. if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put? the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC. since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value. if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC. miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics. |
|
|
|
yes it is competing. but if scZC is only $0.006/scZC vs $340/scBTC and ppl like me like perfect anonymity but don't want to pay $340/scBTC, i will buy the $0.006/scZC with fiat on an exchange.
and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM.
So finally you admit that miners will not care to mine or MM a shitsidecoin with no market acceptance/value. so instead of giving me a rational argument about why my above scenario is wrong, you'd rather deflect the issue? any nowhere did i say that miners will not care to mine or MM this scZC. i said the opposite, they would be encouraged to mine or MM it. Therefore you propose that some users will prefer storing their value in a sideshitcoin that is more volatile, less risk-averse, less secure and has no distinct feature.
the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put. and the miners have every reason to mine or MM scZC b/c of the extra block rewards and tx fees from both scZC and scBTC.  btw you can buy Monero right now, perfect anonymity, and you only have to pay a fraction of BTC's price, a real bargain! don't lose your chance! |
|
|
|
again, when you say "market" you're confining your definition perspective to that of Bitcoiners only. other ppl/entities with other agendas will look at this totally differently.
other ppl/entities have been trying to disrupt Bitcoin's market leading position for quite some time now. so far they have failed quite spectacularly. how is sidechains helping them again? (please don't say merged mining) mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC. it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played. |
|
|
|
my assumption is that the sidecoin, whatever it is, may offer features with greater appeal than Bitcoin itself. scZC is a good example as it might give perfect anonymity. and if it's paired with faster tx times for both scZC and scBTC, then yes, alot of ppl should be attracted to it including miners. especially if the block rewards are being given out in the form of scZC.
But sidecoin with feature is competing with scBTC with the same feature, greater market acceptance, more liquidity, bigger network effect. Sidecoin reintroduces risk of greater volatility, sketchy distribution and likely inferior network security. Sidecoin = altcoin yes it is competing. but if scZC is only $0.006/scZC vs $340/scBTC and ppl like me like perfect anonymity but don't want to pay $340/scBTC, i will buy the $0.006/scZC with fiat on an exchange. and once scZC establishes a value, miners will be encouraged to direct mine or MM. |
|
|
|
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.  Miners do not mergemine shitchain. You're so dishonest in your arguments it is mind blowing. There is no "greater upside". The upside is in using the coin with the biggest liquidity and network effect. Of course speculators are gonna speculate but the market will go for the risk-free put if it wants to protect the value of its investment while using a particular feature. again, when you say "market" you're confining your definition perspective to that of Bitcoiners only. other ppl/entities with other agendas will look at this totally differently. |
|
|
|
He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment
when you say this do you realize that you're only talking about Bitcoiners? a SC can be created by anyone with any utility or an agenda, like scZC, or even scGOV. |
|
|
|
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.
Unless that is the reason. An inferior shitcoin will defeat the superior option of risk-averse 2wp? Do you realise what you are saying here? my assumption is that the sidecoin, whatever it is, may offer features with greater appeal than Bitcoin itself. scZC is a good example as it might give perfect anonymity. and if it's paired with faster tx times for both scZC and scBTC, then yes, alot of ppl should be attracted to it including miners. especially if the block rewards are being given out in the form of scZC. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin UP!
Surely this has something to do with Sidechains. or in spite of. for now. |
|
|
|
define this: scZEROBTC
are you saying another SC would arise once removed from MC?
So we have two sidechains : A sidechain using only 1:1 pegged unit. This unit offers whatever feature you want, faster tx or zerocoin type privacy. A sidechain also using 1:1 pegged but issuing, for unknown reasons, a sidecoin. The sidecoin is not fungible with BTC or the scBTC. It has to create its own value. The problem with this chain is there is no interest for the user to use the sidecoin because : a. it offers no additional value than the scBTC on the same chain b. it offers no "risk-free put" Which chain are people going to use? 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. |
|
|
|
and you are simply economically illiterate.
who says the price of the sidecoin has to be $0? what if the sidecoin was sideZerocoin as in rocks example? a speculator, like myself, would seriously buy up a bunch of sideZerocoin on an exchange for FIAT and that alone could drive the price sky high.
Maybe you're just playing stupid? The price of the sidecoin is 0$ because no one uses it. Answer that : Who would you buy sideZerocoin when you have the option to use scZEROBTC on a 1:1 peg risk-free? Do you realise there is NO reason for the sidecoin to exist if you can replicate the feature on a 1:1 scBTC define this: scZEROBTC are you saying another SC would arise once removed from MC? |
|
|
|
b/c there will always be some idiots who WILL value it. just look at altcoin valuations. they're small but they're there and can be sold for fiat. it would also be possible for the sidecoin to actually take off in value which would really be a huge bonus.
ok, SC must provide some utility (eg. fast tx) to be useful. and then somebody creates SC with same utility without "sidecoin" and sc-block-chain will have only 1/2 size (b/c he removes garbage). When miner have limited resources then what chain will he prefer. He can mine 4 useful chains(he can take profit) or only 2 with garbage. sideZerocoin, for a Bitcoin miner currently losing money, would be an excellent speculative bet for directly mining sideZerocoin. not only that, speculators would buy sideZerocoin on exchanges for cash establishing value to draw miners in. |
|
|
|
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 a worthless sidecoin. and you are simply economically illiterate. who says the price of the sidecoin has to be $0? what if the sidecoin was sideZerocoin as in rocks example? a speculator, like myself, would seriously buy up a bunch of sideZerocoin on an exchange for FIAT and that alone could drive the price sky high. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
