simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100.
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m) no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger. this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two. In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain. its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth. initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325. bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat. Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325? look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE. that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less. that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots. |
|
|
|
|
why? b/c SC's have decreased the overall security in the system by encouraging MM.
|
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100.
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m) no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger. this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two. In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain. its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth. initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325. bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat. equilibrium price ends up lower than $325 |
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100. $325
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
FTFY it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower. yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price.Bitstamp is sidechain controlled by central server. Is bitcoin from bitstamp worth only $100 ? i can see your analogy but i don't think it's appropriate. it's an exchange where all Bitcoiners look to as a reference point for price discovery as well as getting in and out of BTC. that is not the situation in a leeching SC. |
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100.
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m) no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger. this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two. |
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100. $325
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
FTFY it can't start off @ $325 b/c the SC IS less secure and the risk of being on an entirely different ledger with less security means the instantaneous initial price has to be lower. yes, with time the 2 prices will equilibrate, but at a lower price. |
|
|
|
|
simple theory question for all SC proponents. so simple in fact what am i missing?
we have 13M BTC @ around $325. SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration). we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc. let's say price starts off @ $100.
why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower? multiply this by 1000 SC's.
|
|
|
|
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.
Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it. I agree with CD, and your appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy in any case. GM has already demonstrated his capacity for terrible judgement and hypocrisy, in the Custom Hardware sub where he repeatedly violated/refused to enforce the rules HE WROTE and stupidly advised people to eschew full ASIC refunds because he clung so strongly to his sense of entitlement to an unethical windfall. He is a hyper-specialized codemonkey who has no business being responsible for anything outside of programming. Regardless, I don't think we can win the political battle to fork BitCoin into SideCoin due to the incentives created by the conflicts of interest. My only comfort is seeing the Maximalists turning BTC into the ultimate altcoin, driven by their fundamentalist zeal for jihad against all other cyptos (which they consider blasphemous abominations unto Holy Satoshi). well, since they've set up a for-profit company to take advantage of their source code change, it could simply just be a matter of money. i agree with what you say about GM though. |
|
|
|
...
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.
Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency. Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down. as usual, you're distorting things. i think Gavin has been very responsible as lead dev and quite frankly is the only one i trust anymore except for Wladimir and still maybe Pieter.
Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB. Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.
wtf are you blabbing about now? you are such a complainer. Hearn man crush? give me an example of what you're talking about. more delusion from you.
When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me. He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then. Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution. I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.
w/o Gavin, Bitcoin would not have gotten as far as it has. he has the utmost respect if you read the general community response to him (quiet JR) and he's about the only one who can keep his mouth shut.
As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them. You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.
no one's spinning anything. i'm telling it like i see it. |
|
|
|
On the conflict of interest position...
Is it a conflict of interest if a company sponsors a developer to work on Bitcoin Core?
Is it a conflict of interest if TBF sponsors a developer?
I would say that it is, but the conflict is not necessarily a horrible thing in all cases, just sometimes.
What it does do is encourage me to question the authority of the developer more than otherwise.
I've been doing a good bit of that over the MAX_BLOCKSIZE issue vs. Gavin's proposal to patch it rather than fix it.
i don't have a problem with any of those relationships. i said it earlier, i wouldn't mind the current bunch of guys proposing SC's be employed by individual companies like Garzik. it's the banding together under one company that can cause a block of competitors and monoculture. Gavin's in a special category more pristine under TBF as i'm sure he isn't being paid the big bucks, let alone have equity in a for profit. |
|
|
|
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.
I don't like nor trust Luke jr. He's the biggest criminal of the lot. Seriously, did non-one follow his actions in the past years? Luke, I'd pay for you NOT to work on Bitcoin. I don't trust you at all. so i know many prominent Bitcoin celebrates have dubious reputations, but i haven't followed Luke jr. not to raise any accusations in what issues has he been involved that caused you to lose trust? I'm only aware of some name calling between CGMiner and BFGMiner, to be honest I never got to the bottom of it all, and went with CGMiner dare i say it because i didn't trust Luke's slanted eyed avatar. numerous run ins with Gavin, famously BIP 16: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61705.30;wap2Luke is actually not a core dev specifically b/c Gavin won't let him b/c of trust issues Luke-Jr. attacks and kills Coiledcoin alt-currency using the Eligius mining pool: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/o6qwx/lukejr_attacks_and_kills_coiledcoin_altcurrency/ |
|
|
|
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.
Cypher, let it go man. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that pretty much noone agrees with you on this one. The horse is dead already. No need to keep hitting it. evidence please? so you want to ignore the thrust of my post, the ethics of the situation? |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Ok, I'm really getting sick of this fundamental misunderstanding making the rounds these days that "its the Blockchain stupid" that makes Bitcoin valuable and not the currency. I put the blame for this misperception squarely at the feet of Andreas as he's the one who's been most public and vocal spreading this view. After all, he is one of the geeks. See 4:30 with Arthur Levitt : http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/arthur-levitt-on-sec-s-edgar-filing-system-and-bitcoin-YVtI25q8Tn~vJ2NWIawrpw.htmlLet me flip this argument around and say "no stupid, it's the currency that makes Bitcoin, not the Blockchain". After all, because it's a fixed supply and can't be inflated, THAT is what is resonating with freedom minded people worldwide who are tired of having their money devalued. And because these people have thrown their hard earned fiat money at Bitcoin, precisely for this reason, this is what has caused the price to rise and therefore has facilitated the mining industry to thrive and therefore the Blockchain has been allowed to become the immutable ledger it has become. The Blockchain would be nothing without the currency. Stupid. Now those who know me best realize I'm saying this partly in jest because what I really believe is that the 2 are inextricably linked as Bitcoin is its own self contained financial system. Which is why I disagree with the core assumption of the SC concept too, btw, which assumes they can be separated. |
|
|
|
for the doom and gloomers who are into fractals, take heart in the Megaphone formation that appears to be similar to that of the 2007-8 period. it's all in the eye of the beholder!  |
|
|
|
i've been wrong in calling the bottom, for so long in terms of what seems to be an interminable decline (only 11 mo really), that it can't hurt anymore than it already has by calling the bottom yet again:  |
|
|
|
-
you just weren't born into the right family. |
|
|
|
here's what a little QE moral hazard BS buys you these days. the apparatchiks are firmly in control:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
