There had been a number of cases when someone would get sick and then claim to have just gotten back from Africa only to have their claim debunked by the lack of travel records and confirmation by their employer that they have been at work, in the US, during the time they claimed to have been traveling.
What a bizarre claim. Do you have any evidence for this? There was a case in DC when someone was throwing up on a bus near the pentagon who was claiming they had just gotten back from east Africa There is possibly a thousand false alarms for every credible case. http://www.ibtimes.com/ebola-false-alarms-us-escalate-hysteria-spreads-1708073Lots of folks crying wolf. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then.
The pump is a BTC pump. The scBTC moves because of the "peg".
Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure). The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg".
There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).
It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises.
That doesn't make any sense. There is only so much demand for scBTC. This demand does not change whether people get them through exchange or SPVing. For more BTC to move into various scBTC there needs to be more demand for them. Simple economics. People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate : scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC. Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV. No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism. The amount of coins sitting on a sidechain is proportionate to the amount of users willing to use it. Your "pump & dump" scheme, if we can even call it that, has no incidence on this demand. The demand is supported by the "peg". There is a profitable trade, people will buy. If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC? It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature. The feature matters less than the prices. The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds.... or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might). |
|
|
|
So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?
Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.
The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter. What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve" No demonstration is needed of this. Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right? By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg" The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived. Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there. If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue. Demand for scBTC is absolutely important to your "pump & dump". You argue that you will be able to unload a bunch of scBTC to fiat. There needs to be an increase in demand for scBTC to do so. Unlike with regular altcoins you cannot create "speculative" demand because the peg allows people to ride your "pump" holding BTC if they chose to do so. For that reason, the whole pump & dump scheme is ineffective. In fact, if people prefer the "exchange-traded" version of scBTC then it is possible that this could work against your theory : people would no longer convert BTC to scBTC but buy the ones available on exchange. Furthermore, the scenario is even less probable when we consider that fiat might become irrelevant with the rise of BTC. I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then. The pump is a BTC pump. The scBTC moves because of the "peg". Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure). The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg". There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require). It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises. |
|
|
|
Sex is not a store of value, not a self sustaining medium of exchange in the ordinary sense
Is your question seriously meant?
that is not necessarily true, sex can create new life which is a store of value since human labor has value, therefor sex can create a store of value So pregnancy is another form of "proof of stake"? I hope I am not going to hell for that one.depends on which State you live in, no? in some it may be proof of work? i'm sorry to whoever i offend, this should be in the satire section. I think it isn't proof of work until you go into labor...  |
|
|
|
So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?
Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.
The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter. What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve" No demonstration is needed of this. Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right? By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg" The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived. Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there. If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue. |
|
|
|
Sex is not a store of value, not a self sustaining medium of exchange in the ordinary sense
Is your question seriously meant?
that is not necessarily true, sex can create new life which is a store of value since human labor has value, therefor sex can create a store of value So pregnancy is another form of "proof of stake"? I hope I am not going to hell for that one. |
|
|
|
There had been a number of cases when someone would get sick and then claim to have just gotten back from Africa only to have their claim debunked by the lack of travel records and confirmation by their employer that they have been at work, in the US, during the time they claimed to have been traveling.
What a bizarre claim. Do you have any evidence for this? It didn't seem so bizarre to me (remember that fully 1% of people are insane). So google and two clicks gave this: http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/health-officials-in-jefferson-parish-monitoring-patient-transported-by-hazmat-crews/29068030This is why I think the CDC is having more trouble managing the disease of EbolaPanic than they are of managing Ebola, and thus the disinformation on their website. |
|
|
|
Here is where you are flatly wrong. There clearly is an incentive, the time incentive.
To change BTC to scBTC, you will have to wait for 100 blocks or so, whatever the confirmation time may be.
If you buy them at exchange, there is no wait.
This confirmation exchange value is created in both ways in the transaction. People will pay a premium for time, localbitcoin pricing is evidence enough of this.
But you are assuming that there is an incremental demand for the scBTC, whatever its utility is. This is not necessarily the case. You need someone to buy all those scBTC you want to dump for fiat. Since BTC & scBTC price are correlated one does not need to buy scBTC to "ride your pump" So is there a peg or not? Is it just "correlated" now? Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this. |
|
|
|
The liquidity is the ease with which you can part with your money. In the conversion from sidecoin to bitcoin, even if it is full reserve, there will be some resistance, some has talked about a delay of 2 days. It has to be at least the sum of the confirmation times of each chain. Therefore the sidecoins will have some less liquidity (it goes both ways, but since bitcoin starts out with the best liquidity, it is a problem for the sidecoin). The result is that the sidecoin usage can reach some level due to added functionality, but the lower liquidity, which should normally give it a lower value, will, with the pegging presumption, give it a lower usage. Some sidecoins will exist because they are practical, but they will not take off.
This is a very good explanation of why NL's speculative attack is not plausible although I disagree with you end argument that "utility" sidechains cannot take off. Lower usage (than BTC) does not necessarily translate in no usage at all. That said, this effectively support Adrian's comments that SC with biggest network will discourage use of similarly featured/competing clones. This is rather a good explanation of what makes it plausible instead of not plausible. The time has market value, confirmed scBTC are worth more than the newly created ones awaiting confirmation. If I want to get scBTC right away without having to wait for confirmations, I could get them through exchange rather than SPV conversion, and could expect to pay some small premium for that. |
|
|
|
It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack. Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.
If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people. What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip.
For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each. No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.
In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges. No BTC is sold to the market. Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).
Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.
There is no peg.
There is no spoon.
i've already went thru that one early on in the 200 pgs +. but i lol'd at the name  reminded me of a billiard shot. but i here ya and i expect you to be trolled hard as i was for that one. True, apologies for taking some of your well deserved heat from this. I went for the meme-combo of billiards, and square peg round hole to resurrect this one because I didn't think it was adequately resolved. And the recently revisited topic of the misuse of economic terms in the new whitepaper was brought up. That is bound to create more confusion than it resolves. |
|
|
|
In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges. No BTC is sold to the market. Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).
Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.
There is no peg.
There is no spoon.
Here is what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario : If, as you say, people believe in the peg (which they absolutely should) then they will not buy your scBTC. In reality, the market has no incentive to purchase your scBTC over BTC if they are the same price. The reason for this? Well you have suggested it yourself : the "block delay in spend-ability". What makes the best money? The most cost effective and versatile exchangeable asset. BTC is more easily exchangeable with fiat (because of liquidity) and other scBTCs than scBTC is and is also more cost-effective at doing so. No matter the 1:1 fiat peg, BTC is a more desirable unit than scBTC. BTC has better fungibility and liquidity in the economy than scBTC. Here is where you are flatly wrong. There clearly is an incentive, the time incentive. To change BTC to scBTC, you will have to wait for 100 blocks or so, whatever the confirmation time may be. If you buy them at exchange, there is no wait. This confirmation exchange value is created in both ways in the transaction. People will pay a premium for time, localbitcoin pricing is evidence enough of this. |
|
|
|
Hey Noble Palace, is anything happening on that side of the Square? We betcha you have more exclusive and probably more luxurious, but you just can't beat the size!  OH yes, Your Majesty. The Noble Palace is undergoing a redesign effort for producing a yet grander and luxurious accommodation suitable for foreign kings who may come to pay tribute to His Majesties glorious kingdom, and could provide either long term residential use, or even royal serve wedding parties for those foreign kingdoms that may come beseeching a mixture of royal bloodlines. We also would offer to noble sponsors of their knights visiting for the joust competitions, only the best available in both spectator views and services. Only the finest artisans and crafts people as may be found in all the lands are sought for this most magnificent location. |
|
|
|
|
It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack. Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.
If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people. What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip.
For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each. No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.
In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges. No BTC is sold to the market. Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).
Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.
There is no peg.
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
I guess you guys' point is that sidechains could eventually create a propensity for coins to move off the mainchain and that this in itself is an increase in risk... While I believe the concern to be fair, my opinion is this is inevitable, sidechain or not.
The choice we are presented with is whether we'd like for this to happen on more centralized, 3rd party controlled platforms or through the use of more decentralized, well designed and properly implemented sidechains.
It provides a new another way to lose coins to tradability. Dead coins, burned. With alts you just lose wealth, no one else is affected by that. When SC 1 ends, coins are lost. I don't need you to be wrong about anything, it isn't my goal to win an argument. Counterparty did this too, and I burned bitcoin for that too knowingly. |
|
|
|
|
We can add a little more complexity. Maybe this will help...
MC
| \
SC1 SC3
| /
SC2
So now SC2 has coins from MC derived through both SC1 and SC3, but SC1 is a dead chain and will no longer support SPV back to MC (say for sake of discussion that devs can inflate at will and syphon off any that get SPV'd back from SC2 so no one will ever do it).
SC2 is still an active and tradable asset with MC
How many ledgers do we have?
Is this a new risk or is there another way to do this without Side Chains?
(There is a lot more complexity that can be added.) Some economists would suggest that complexity is itself a risk, so any new "feature" would potentially add this sort of risk in the amount that the new features are useful or powerful.
FWIW, in my model, there are 4 ledgers here, its a new risk, but Side Chains are still a worthwhile innovation... So long as people understand what they are and aren't confused by folks that blindly advocate them as the perfect solution to everything.
It is nuanced.
|
|
|
|
it's a new risk.
 |
|
|
|
"Imagination" being the operative word here. see, even this simpleton gets it:  FREE LUNCH, someone must alert Dorian! |
|
|
|
CDC changed its public information, which in some ways looks better and in some, not so much. There are a lot of unknowns, and it is difficult to claim that something does not happen, just that they don't have evidence of it happening in the lab. There are some hemorrhagic fevers that some rats can carry (hanta virus for example). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640244/pdf/9866729.pdfSo when CDC says: Ebola is not spread through the air, by water, or in general, by food. However, in Africa, Ebola may be spread as a result of handling bushmeat (wild animals hunted for food) and contact with infected bats. There is no evidence that mosquitos or other insects can transmit Ebola virus. Only a few species of mammals (e.g., humans, bats, monkeys, and apes) have shown the ability to become infected with and spread Ebola virus. I have to wonder about the addition of "Ebola is not spread through the air, by water, by food" which is new and isn't in earlier. I am guessing they are dealing with the 1% of people that are plain flat out crazy and there are a lot more of those then there are ebola patients. So they put out false information. I just don't like it. (Ebola can be transmitted through all those, its just freaky unlikely, its more likely someone having a nervous breakdown is delusional than that they have ebola because they drank some strange tasting water) |
|
|
|
If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.
At least that is my expectation / hope.
I share the hope but not the expectation. When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account.... Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin? How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this? There are a lot of these people. Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work. ...and that they own gold if they have some GLD. That's a great way to put it. It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little. When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar. It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem. Well... Bitcoin was actually hacked (malliated transactions), but that wasn't what caused (most of) mtgox's problems, it was just used as convenient cover for the other problems. MK compounded the news confusion by blaming it and maybe bought a few more days, so MK should get the blame on that newsfusion more so than the news that reported it. I don't know if it is a new problem or not, but the explanations and creation of understandings in the minds of the broader public may be made more difficult by the "one ledger only" notions. EmptyGox very clearly had its own ledger which at some point became irreconcilable with the Bitcoin block chain. If it were a side chain company that had monkeyed with its code to do these shenanigans, it would possibly been more noticeable (if it were being openly mined by folks that examine source changes), but if they managed to keep it hidden, or were privately mining (like Ripple?) it may also be more difficult to explain to the "one ledger only" believers how this is possible. In the earlier example where scBTC 1 failed and scBTC 2 became an altcoin, at some point in this process there are very clearly (at least) two separate ledgers. I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able. Others might suggest some other time. Maybe at one of the many changes that resulted in the failure of scBTC 1, or maybe after it fails, or maybe never and the scBTC 2 altcoin and Bitcoin are still just one ledger. In that case, when the ledger of scBTC 1 failed, some might get confused and say the Bitcoin ledger failed. (Since they have been told that there is only one ledger, and something failed, so it must be that.) It seems simpler and more sensible to me to consider each side chain its own potentially merge-able ledger. It is hard enough to try to explain how a ledger is merged with "something" when there is only one ledger in the first place, with what then is it merged? |
|
|
|
good morning fellow people of the crpytokingdom,
I'd also like get into the IPO with 10 shares, if it is still possible.
long live his royal majesty!
ps: after selling a good bunch of stone to luigi I still have around 50k stone, which should be sufficient for a nice house, iirc.
is there some architect willing to construct me something nice. if so, please bear in mind that I await to become part of the nobility in thew near future.
so imo my new house should be a bit more representative than it is needed for a L6 char right now.
The Marquess Joseph of New Liberty keeps an architect/artisan on staff and can assist with this if the need remains. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
