gold is at lowest level since 2011
its trading at price of march 2010
and still no one know how much it can drop
i know (how much it can drop) |
|
|
|
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. 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. Why would you transfer "sidecoin" when they have $0 value ? You cannot transfer value using invaluable tokens. It is like a want buy gold and you give me gold + your garbage. How this garbage can add value to gold ? b/c there will always be some idiots speculating miners and investors 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. |
|
|
|
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 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. edit: AND as a speculative bet on the sidecoin appreciation. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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 progress. 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 Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
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. 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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin rocket fueling up
|
|
|
|
|
Odalv. Out of curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic
And it shows. sideZerocoins are not convertible to scZerocoins and therefore BTC. They are it's own unique asset and therfore not inflationary to BTC As far as your second point about a fixed supply of 21M BTC always holding value despite being spread out over a thousand different sidechains? Think if it this way. You're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure coins off an unhackable ledger and moving them over to a thousand different insecure quite hackable ledgers. The equilibrium BTC price after arb will be dragged lower |
|
|
|
Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin." How can you prove this ? - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...) - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names 2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them. it's not the same. you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain. Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp. If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges. I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity). yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.
when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.
Using different 2wp hacking can be harder b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC) This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol. I don't have a problem with federated pegs because they don't involve protocol changes. |
|
|
|
Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!
Yay!
I guess you have fun with your PM shorts recently.  I closed them out one dump too soon but that's ok. Ive made plenty off of tvbcof already. |
|
|
|
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 wel
l 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. 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. 1. Miners is wasting resources if he keeps another blockchain. 2. Miners is wasting resources on MC adding worthless hash into MC block. Yes but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation. |
|
|
|
We can't have democracy without choice. I have one legit chain to point my hardware at. I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin. There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use. As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks. If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.
What about this SC. 1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC. 2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC 3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM And if it works, you've just made my point about how you can suck value out of Bitcoin with games by severing the link between the currency and MC |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!
Yay!
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
(not really)
