I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.
Perhaps your notion of why altcoins have value is incorrect. For example, one reason Litecoin has been described as having value is as a hedge against something going very wrong with Bitcoin (both technology-wise and economic/ecosystem-wise). Given that side chains are totally unproven, with uncertain effects, it is entirely possible that Litecoin could go rationally go up in value due to side chains. Also, I'm not convinced that the true version of side chains (that requires a hard fork) is inevitable. More likely than yesterday I would agree. Also, let's not forget that this for-profit company has scooped up several of the top Bitcoin developers. That could be good or bad for the rest of Bitcoin. I'm sure they would argue (both individually as a business) it will only be good. I'm not entirely sold on that premise. Yes, lots of linear thinking going on over in the sidechain camp. I keep bringing up the possible negative effects of a sidechain losing 20 to 30% of all btc and all they can say is "that will just make my coin worth more!". |
|
|
|
I am quite surprised the altcoin market isnt dumping in droves since the announcement of blockstream. What was once an iffy conceptual idea is now nearly an inevitability.
The alt-coin market has never been rational.  SC's are still just an idea. just like TC's and Ethereum. until they get a working implementation going, alts are gonna hang around. and it's still not clear whether SC's get off the ground. there are alot of unhappy ppl cuz of the for-profit company these guys represent and the power to push code of their choice to maximize that profit. |
|
|
|
|
get ready to ask your Q's!
Mr. Back and Mr. Maxwell will hold an AMA (“ask me anything”) session on the popular social network site Reddit Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Sidechain offers much more than scalability.
- Assurance contracts
- Time-shifted fees
- Demurrage
- Subsidy
- Co-signed SPV proofs
- SNARKs
- ...
and all possible combination :-) (endless opportunities)
Edit:
While main protocol intact. No one have to bother with sidechain. Only use if you like feature of sidechain.
I just dont see it in sidechain, any sidechain features are limited by the reliance on Bitcoins POW Merge Mining, true innovation will be multifaceted, something a spin-off could seed. As for all the other endless opportunities, I see Open Transaction doing a better job in a trust less environment on top of (with) Bitcoin. i agree. merge mining seems to be the only chance SC's have to be secure. however, that comes at the expense of centralization and 51% attacks. furthermore, the upside potential of BTC is so enormous, i doubt any of these would get any traction. |
|
|
|
We (I) are shorting gold from 2008
Target 200-400 for now.
Ohh and I forgot to add importantly, that "and it's seems nothing special". you were 3 yrs too soon. |
|
|
|
I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems. Gavin should be very pro-sidechains. It solves his need for scalability. Many plug-ins can be installed on top of bitcoin. e.g. sidechain for local economy (town, country) .. "main" blockchain can remain small how do you secure it? |
|
|
|
The situation isn't helped in any way by people using terms of art they clearly don't understand, like "scarce."
i hate that term with a passion. it validates Bitcoin skeptics impression that there aren't enough bitcoins. Voorhees uses that term very loosely. that's why you'll hear me use the descriptor "fixed supply" all the time when i describe Bitcoin. it turns out that there is plenty of gold to go around in the world when it was more useful as a reserve money. as a matter of fact, if you include gold derivative trading on the Comex or LBMA, the dollar value of all gold trading is greater than most currencies. fixed supply is what is most important when talking about a store of value. |
|
|
|
going thru the paper now but this seems to be a problematic assumption: "the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf |
|
|
|
|
buying bitcoin...
time is running out.
|
|
|
|
just over the first resistance line on the intermed term:  |
|
|
|
|
GDX & GDXJ have been hinting. it feels too soon...
|
|
|
|
silver may be making a premature break for it:  |
|
|
|
...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.
In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.
This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.
File your S1s, kids.
They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized. Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure. There are two potential regulatory issues: 1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that. 2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality. #1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation. there's something to be learned from GLBSE and Nefario, the first intended global stock trading system first implemented in 2011. it got shut down after 2 attempts, the last being by the UK regulators. |
|
|
|
lol, what a freak show. Bitcoin to the Moon. |
|
|
|
gold breaking up with first challenge @1305:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
