It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.
what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions. presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC. so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working? no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech. presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not i do understand the tech. it's you who do not understand the economics. it's perfectly reasonable to expect the price to differ in certain circumstances even in the presence of arbitrage. well then if you do understand this I will say yes, of course, the correlation between market exchange rate and technical conversion rate will be considered in my review of sidechains. I fail to see the point of that question though considering the obvious answer. |
|
|
|
If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is.
BTC can't literally be "transferred," only locked. What you are talking about is an altcoin that is backed by BTC and is likely to have lower volatility relative to BTC than an altcoin that doesn't have this backing. (Interestingly though, this could in theory mean higher volatility relative to fiat, though in practice that would not be the case with most current alts.) http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf but these rules are hard coded into the sidechain so one knows what to expect before moving his BTC there Hard coded does not mean the code can't be changed. It is the same as with any altcoin. If the developers decide to change the code, and the community accepts it (without forking) then it is changed. I have read Konrad's paper. My understanding is that he suggests the price of the BTC locked on the chain would essentially gravitate towards BTC's and most probably at a certain market discount considering cost, risk and uncertainty. |
|
|
|
It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.
what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions. presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC. so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working? no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech. presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not |
|
|
|
Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)
it's not obvious given my reading of the paper. maybe to you and me, but not the average person. why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper? You are being really disingenous again. Did Satoshi warn about the dangers of altscams in the Bitcoin white paper? |
|
|
|
"any deterministic function". At the extreme, the exchange rate can therefore be dynamically set through time using some Oracle as an input. In theory.
Of course, but these rules are hard coded into the sidechain so one knows what to expect before moving his BTC there. My point is I don't believe the sidechain can magically change its rule and dispossess everyone of their BTC. Unless there existed a backdoor which I expect anyway would be identified after careful review of the code. |
|
|
|
would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?
It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains. I am not so much interested in sidechains supported by native currencies. They are essentially altcoins and I have historically stayed away from these. If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is. In that case, price of the unit ideally gravitates toward parity with original BTC for reasons discussed before in this thread. It is possible the BTC unit resting on a sidechain would have a slightly discounted market price for security concerns but I expect that gap to significantly narrow once/if technology matures. |
|
|
|
brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?
taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible. but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there |
|
|
|
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way. Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain. So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC. But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen? Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what. Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't be inflated. Are the sidechains "rules" not set in stone at its creation? |
|
|
|
what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?
once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure. |
|
|
|
You're missing the point. Some here think that by buying 1BTC, they are buying 1/21millionth of the technology. I'm simply pointing out that's nonsense.
Actually you are buying 1/21 millionth of the total digital units of an instance of the most sophisticated, actively developed, global, decentralized, secure transactions network the world has ever seen... That's why buying 1/21 millionth of an altcoin costs 1000 times less despite the fact that the underlying technology is almost identical...FTFY. an instance of? what other instance of blockchain ledger has gained any traction? caution, troll, don't mistake infrastructure for "sunken capital" again troll |
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen to the gold mining companies if they tried 'hodling' their gold until it went to the moon...
gold mining companies do not have other revenue stream |
|
|
|
shakeout of weak hands finally complete? made a panic move myself there losing a tiny bit  There is no such thing as shaking out the weak hands. I've been reading that exact same at least twice a week since we went down from $1200. there's weak hands to shake at every price level |
|
|
|
Newly minted coins should be distributed. They could account for daily volume, but not much more. As far as off exchange trading goes, they have little bearing on price because we only have exchanges to report that. Dark pool trading is a game as much as open trading. I don't see the point to doing it.
I'm not suggesting there is trading off exchange but only that blocks of coins are sold by miners off exchange to buyers. I don't believe they put pressure on the exchange price either but in some way they satisfy a demand that would otherwise buy on exchange |
|
|
|
By a large margin, most bitcoins mined are not sold on exchanges. They are held.
I like the idea, but how do you know? Do have some proof? Unless you see millions of bitcoins trading somewhere that I don't, I'll have someone add them to the charts. Last I saw somewhere, bitcoin days destroyed was far less than 10% which means that even if every bitcoin that changed addresses was sold, it still wouldn't be much. I would guess that less than 2% are exchanged. If you bring Mt Gox into the calculation, then it's really far less than 2%. Not sure what Bitcoin days destroyed has to do with newly minted coins being sold? I too believe that the majority are held but the increasing number of transactions leads me to believe a good amount are changing hands off exchange |
|
|
|
my question is (odd thou it may sound) is if 70% of BTC is in China as far as owned....and the assumption is BTC was a bubble when the majority
bought such...what is the price..if that majority decides to get out (ie cut their losses) gonna be at the end of such a flush of btc to fiat?
are we talking back to the start of the bubble $150 usd say last oct 2013 or will it over correct more so downward...seems to be the trend
<snipped part trying to answer his own question>
Chinese have post $150 bitcoins. It would make no sense for them to sell below their cost except for a few panickers. The best way to price bitcoin is its moving average which is based on many factors over time. my point is they got in on the boom...if they are what drove the boom in price their leaving is what will drive the bust in price assuming it is acting like a classic bubble (ie people were into bitcoin to speculate not to invest or do it long term) not saying it would not then come back and bubble again..bitcoin that is...just saying looks a lot like air out of a balloon right now too much in too fast ...too much now going out to fast....back to where you started.....hopefully to slow growth vrs no growth on the start over There you go. You answered your own question. I don't assume such things. hey there will be a reason....for all this ...it will be quite obvious say fall of 2015....but if BTC is going to survive would be nice to know it is just a classic boom/bust cycle vs a flash in the pan ....china driven uptick in price and the slow sell to oblivion as the other alternative whatever ..BTC still seems to be over priced and fragile......we will see I guess....I'm ok at 150 usd below that I start to lose just saying from the guy who got a miner on oct 18th 2013 when btc went from 150 to 1164 in 2 months and watching is slide down to 350 this last year..it seems to me it is a classic bubble.....i guess the question should be less about price and if it will do the classic boom part over again vs the dreaded view of it is all a dead cat bounce to worthlessness but all in all we probably would have been better off w/o china's big jump into btc last fall and we'd be quite the happy bunch now on our slow growth from 150 usd to 350 usd this last year (humans are silly) also this thread is called "finding the btc bottom" just trying to fit in You can't just write off the Chinese as stupid investors that panic bought for no reason at all. I think all the weak hands are long gone by now. You said it yourself that we would be happy at $350 by now if the bubble never happened. Who is to say the bubble hasn't already collapsed too far and that the running average of $400 isn't a more realistic price? using the chart I posted $350 could be the "return to mean price" but myself I don't think it is done yet I think it more likely to be around $150 before it either goes up again as a boom/bust cycle again (due to fragility of bitcoin economics) or it really is just a fad and will fade into 'dead cat bounce" territory..which means my friends will find my bitcoin experiment to have much mirth so the main difference we have is (hopefully) the bottom before it rebounds vs the alternative (shudder) of it being a fad and we fade into a dead cat bounce..and slow dribble to oblivion anyway that is the point of this thread ..where is the bottom I like your price better..but still think it will creep around $150 before all is said and done ..whichever it goes next as to the rest up/down/sideways/oblivion..I'm more then clueless on that aspect.... there was 30k bought overnight at 300$ I can't see how we can possibly go to 150$ |
|
|
|
Fantastic list, much appreciated |
|
|
|
In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.
I've wondered the same thing. That combo is so rare that one can only conclude that the system of incentives is working. I've understood the potential of bitcoin half way through satoshis paper without knowing anything about economics, not much about how money works and close to nothing about monetary history. I knew some crypto and had thought about "internet money" before. Maybe I had an open mind. What I'm saying: I think you don't need all of the above. Maybe an open mind is a must, but I think you can scratch at least one of "tech/cs", "econ", "history" or "monetary theory" and still "get bitcoin". I think emphasis here is on *truly* get in as in understand all the implications. I too got hooked fairly quickly but it is not until I educated myself about the history of money as a ledger, by proxy of learning about Bitcoin, that I *truly* got it. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
A meme being an evolutionary term, leaves one's lack of understand to a dead end. While the blockchain is an immutable public ledger preserved for all time it can only preserve information that is equivalent to the value we give the currency. (Or something similar) If the currency was removed and we just kept the blockchain who would be incentivized to protect it, the currently is the reason miners secure the network, it is the reason attacking the network is economically unsustainable. The value in currency ensures the blockchains existence. You can't have one with out the other. Well there are the PoS proponents but they too weight the facts in a way that prevents them seeing the wood for the trees. (All this ignorance means PoS will probably come into favor soonish, and then over time succumb to its shortcomings.) PoS being the central bank to Bitcoin's gold, it is only right that incumbents cling on to familiarity in the face of the inevitable crypto revolution |
|
|
|
sheesh, i didn't bother to read this until now. It's just a bunch of VC-titillating fluffy buzzwords, no-one with a serious intention for examining this technology should be taking shit like this seriously. If that is your "must read" "nailed it" material you are going to lose a lot of dough lady. I think his point may be that you ought to have some balance in your opinion of the blockchain vs. bitcoin debate. Uninformed proponents championing the possibilities made possible by blockchain tech and dismissing the bitcoin money value should not have you ignore such possibilities. At the same time, it does seem like putting the cart before the horse. All of the concepts in this article are well ahead in the future and can only truly be realized with the foundation of bitcoin the money. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC. It's been around for some time now.
Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.
Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function? It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique. Thanks to those who responded. As for this gem (above) -- I'm stunned but not surprised. Everyone else except you is "clueless"; quelle surprise. Since others seem to have pointed out the massive blind spot in your thinking I won't reiterate. For those a little more flexible I suggest: Bitcoin: It’s the platform, not the currency, stupid!
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/02/15/bitcoin-platform-currency/1/Which nailed it back in February. And of course, all this has happened before with radio, telecoms, the internet and other technology as Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" eloquently describes: the hegemony will strip "bitcoin" of all the useful components it needs to continue its control and leave the libertarians tilting at windmills.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
