Is XMR tracking BTC with the same ROI?

My point is that side chains on XMR is silly. XMR needs to leverage BTC side chains.

Will never fly due to the consolidation effect:

There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains.

Surely you have more lucrative endeavors to pursue. I'd be dollar cost averaging out to fiat, waiting for the final bottom < $150 (perhaps < $100) later this year.

Unless you have a long-term horizon before your shorts expire, you are flirting with losing more of your BTC.

No they expanded the ecosystem by increasing innovation (even if in most cases that innovation was only to increase speculation opportunities since many come to this ecosystem for speculation) and that insight is also the generative essence of my insight into what altcoins need to do to survive along with pegged side chains.

If you wanted a monopoly on speculation to drive the Bitcoin price to the moon, then close the doors to entropy (which is only possible within your fleeting Coasian closed system) and attain your miniaturized desktop rendition of the solar system.

Pegged side chains will probably drive consolidation of speculation into fewer variants, because of the importance of capturing the voting power of the peg which is machine verifiably not duplicitous. I think the speculation markets are exhausted/diluted of too many copycoin variants and so this appears to be timely so we can gain synergies.

Again I appreciate what you have done with the Sumcoin whitepaper. For one, you made it much more intelligible than the unpolished brain dumps I had read from Adam and Gregory. Also I prefer your technical writing skills compared to mine. And perhaps on the same block chain some coexistence of Cryptonote's rings (with equal denominations) and this new homomorphic encryption (with unequal denominations) might be the optimal solution. We should probably discuss that at some point and maybe you and others are already doing that.

I don't think my design removes the block chain, rather I argue it just moves non-scalable part of it and alters the trust model to something that isn't a lie to ourselves. It is a similar argument that Gregory (Jorge) makes but inverts the construct and puts more decision power into the ends of the network (which is why I presume you use the term "bearer"). So I could see your work being incorporated. One my goals is to be agnostic to the transaction model because my weakness is I am only an autodidact on the crypto-math, thus I want others (such as yourself) to have the freedom to innovate there without needing to market a new instance of a consensus algorithm (i.e. maximize the division-of-labor and let each focus on his/her strengths in a separation-of-concerns).

I believe quantum resistant rings, PKE trap doors, ZK exist and we just need to reformulate them into these new constructs. Hopefully we can motivate some research perhaps with calls to action and/or financial incentives.

Yeah I agree we need anonymity that is mathematically reliable, because the math-inept society won't forgive us for being math literate about plausible deniability.

But he can't stop federated pegged side chains.

And pegged side chains are superior risk management strategy versus an all-or-nothing risk of Bitcoin vs. altcoin fork war (from a diversification standpoint, i.e. you buy the altcoin if you want upside ROI but don't have to worry about being diversified against ELE or a radical transposition of wealth effect if you hold 100% in BTC). Less risk means more adoption of crypto-currency in general.

Note I think altcoins can coexist and benefit from pegged side chains (nullifying the risk that pegged side chains could copy and steal value from innovation, i.e. threat of Communism!). They just need to be clever about what they do once pegged side chains are a reality in the market.

P.S. they ought to just increase the block size slightly and incorporate the SPV now, but unfortunately the myopic politics is slow to catch up to reality. Any way it will all be subsumed as I described:

Your inability to remember programming facts and tie them together appears to cause your myopic chatterbox to ululate incessantly but fortunately not inexorably.

Larger blocks are a centralization accelerant for the reasons I explained upthread (which was mirrored in some points to you posted at Reddedit by nullc et al). You or others rebutted that IBLT resolves the centralized threat (that is due to higher orphan rate due to propagation delays for less well endowed full nodes) because all the transactions are in the mempool. I and others have pointed out that IBLT is just sugar coated obfuscation of centralization because all full nodes still have to process all transactions (note the variances in mempools that IBLT can tolerate must be very small) driving full node resource requirements up (forcing them off of home connections and onto well connected hosting which is more easily regulated by the cartel via their control of governments), else trust a full node.

Centralization enables an ELE event which is quite plausible and has been explained by myself several times in this thread. That is where the cartel masters via Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, 21 Inc, etc move their zombie masses onto to a fork (probably a pegged side chain in order to avoid the WMD war with the MPEX GavinCoin short) which has the technical attributes they want such as central bank controlled debasement rates and mandatory KYC on all transactions, then they can wreck havoc on the Core chain causing users to move their value out of it and to this cartel side chain. The sort of havoc they can do on Core include for example G7 (perhaps G20) countries regulation of pools forcing KYC to accompany all transactions. As the Core chain becomes a minority chain (declining transaction volume) its hashrate will plummet and then the cartel can buyout some mining farms (which have become worth much less due to the plummet) to 50+% attack the Core chain. While the cartel is moving its masses onto Core driving up the transaction volume for ASIC farms, thus increasing the size of loans to create them, thus when they pull the rug (by moving the zombie masses to their pegged side chain) these ASIC mining farms will go bankrupt.

Larger blocks forces more users to delegate to full nodes (with or without IBLT), providing more top-down organization for the cartel to work its way towards this end goal. When they are ready to wreck havoc on the Core chain later, the larger the blocks, then the more they can more easily wreck havoc against the remaining full nodes they don't control. For example, undulating resource requirements by moving their zombie masses' transactions on and off the Core chain, can cause remaining full nodes to commit to higher cost hosting while capturing only a fraction of the transaction revenue. The attacks that larger blocks enable are probably more than I can enumerate in one post.

Much of what I write lately is referring to vaporware and isn't fully described thus it is of less value. I apologize for this. Rushing to rectify this transgression.

I am not a great writer, but I do claim to have a skill of being able to focus issues into their essence and clarify them for n00bs. This should help me explain any new technology well, so that it is embraced.

I can also confuse the hell out of readers when I want to or am arguing a multi-faceted issue that has a generative essence that most n00bs can't ever really wrap their mind around no matter how well it is articulated to them (e.g. apparently the power vacuum of the Iron Law of Political Economics aka the Law of Collective Action is actually an unteachable concept).

Actually Blockstream's pegged side chains will send more BTC wealth fleeing into altcoin investments. It is counter-intuitive, but Adam and Gregory are achieving the antithesis of their stated effect.

The above is incorrect. On further thought, I have solved the economic threat of Blockstream's pegged side chains (it threatened to turn all innovation into Communism!). There is a win-win solution for side chains and altcoins to co-exist.  

Exciting times ahead...

Yeah a long protracted decline that didn't happen before.

I will repeat for the 3rd or 4th time. You will eat your words as Humble Pie.

The privacy tech is not a threat for as long as the PoW design can be 50+% attacked and trends to centralized.


How do you know that?

Btw, this is why I have to be more concerned, because I possess the one thing TPTB can't allow.


You assume he wasn't the DEEP STATE. How do you know he wasn't?

Btw, "he" did stop in to say hi.

And extremely popular and high economic impact.

We will shift to design where every user is a consensus mining node and the number of full nodes declines to dozens, but the design remains provably decentralized and immune to 50+% attack.

To be entirely nullified by my radical redesign of PoW.

No worries. Core is doomed. A pegged side-chain with SPV built-in will win. Then minority Core will be 50+% attacked into oblivion. MPEX's short will be nullified by the peg.

Now invert his (Jorge Timon's) insight and you have my design. That is the paradigm shift epiphany.