A very good case against the viability of Side Chains and unveiling ideological ulterior motives that undermine the fundamental incentives of Bitcoin. Sidechains bad? Only in their execution. I still think their is a reasonable compromise that enhances Bitcoin, like a remora to a shark. Many people are skeptical. They remind us of altcoins I guess. But if it is a decentralized way to achieve micropayments, for example, seems legit enough read more carefully. his pt is that a SC for micropmts would increase data demands on full nodes thus increasing centralization and thus exposure to gvt intervention and surveillance. pretty devastating article against SC's: Secondly we have the problem of block chain scaling. If everything is going to be on ONE block chain, how will we store all this information in every p2p node? So this contributes to the problem of an ongoing theme in the Bitcion world, that of Centralization. This theme has many sub-motifs such as mass surveillance, monetary dominance, market rigging, and other factors to which average users are averse. It seems this theme is rather virulent and some forces have a lot invested in maintaining programs to progress this goal and hide their agenda from the public. The problem of moving value between different chain types was already solved by Cryptocoin exchanges, however Sidechains privileges a new group- the group that traces and tracks coin usage ie. surveillance interests. In an cryptocoin exchange scenario, ownership qualities are destroyed the moment coins enter into an exchange. |
|
|
|
I do not know if it is not worth my time to talk with you.
it really isn't. you're the one who started the mud slinging. no one said they're smarter. i'm just expressing my view. |
|
|
|
i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior. wow.
This is THE END, of your alt-coin scam. SC will not allow pump/dump scheme anymore. what are you talking about? better stop smokin that stuff... I'm talking about your motivation. ... seems, you are the one "smokin that stuff" and not being able to check reality. the problem with you is that you think just b/c something is technically possible you automatically think its economically possible or viable. that's not true, esp with Bitcoin. you're throwing all caution to the wind. the mere fact that you'll throw out all sorts of these made up allegations show how desperate you are to capitalize on SC's. |
|
|
|
i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior. wow.
This is THE END, of your alt-coin scam. SC will not allow pump/dump scheme anymore. what are you talking about? better stop smokin that stuff... |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money. spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud. the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation. It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased. but so are holders holdings. net effect, zero. "net effect, zero." => a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD => $0 USD WTF is wrong with you? accusing me of scamming? making stuff up now? you're a dick. yep, I'm stupid idiot going mad ... simply dick i think you're so desperate to get this SC scam going you're resorting to all sorts of underhanded behavior. wow. |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money. spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud. the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation. It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased. but so are holders holdings. net effect, zero. "net effect, zero." => a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD => $0 USD WTF is wrong with you? accusing me of scamming? making stuff up now? you're a dick. |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money. spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud. the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation. It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased. but so are holders holdings. net effect, zero. |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money.  this is too good. the only thing too much here is your desperation to character assassinate. |
|
|
|
here's the part i would focus on. it shows i've had problems with SC's from the beginning. it didn't start with Blockstream:
it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now. but i should reserve judgment until there's more info. if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy. Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.
Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
|
|
|
|
yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks). i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
maybe. i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link. It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you. Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)
it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now. but i should reserve judgment until there's more info. if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy. Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.
Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol! who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol! |
|
|
|
yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks). i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
maybe. i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link. It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you. Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan) i did? where? and who's looking to capitalize on SC's? oh, you!:
Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!! |
|
|
|
yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks). i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
maybe. i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link. It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you. i don't think you have been reading carefully enough. |
|
|
|
yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks). i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
maybe. i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link. |
|
|
|
I believe cypher is correct that in order to succeed the only think you need in society is trust less money, all other relationships depend on that one thing.
yes, if we solve the money problem, we solve everything. |
|
|
|
I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol.
"Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right?
yes. and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money. a digital gold standard so to speak. I'm still wondering why things like Counterparty don't mess up the mining incentives. If a huge amount of stock value is riding on Bitcoin doesn't that potentially make an attack more attractive than the miners can get paid to defend against (since they're only getting paid based on the bitcoin price, rather than all the stock value)? Also, I can see that SCs could mean miners don't get paid enough in tx fees in the future, but couldn't the same problem arise from off-chain transaction mechanisms in general? back up a step. miners get paid to insert those CP records into satoshi tx's in the first place which incentivizes mining growth and thus more security and thus less chance for subsequent attack on those same satoshi tx's. now move all these CP tx fees off to a SC that can't be MM'd. this deprecates the MC. and there will be thousands of these insecure SC's as i think only a few SC's will be MM'd due to mining capacity constraints. yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform". |
|
|
|
Are you mainly saying that the incentive structures for mining change in unpredictable ways if speculative assets are built straight into the money itself, rather than those assets simply being denominated in the money, like how the DOW is denominated in dollars? If that's what you're saying, I might agree. I'm not sure I see any problem with the incentives, but I also can't rule out a problem. The precautionary principle. This would extend to things like Counterparty, yes?
Wait, I'm pretty sure you said before that it's fine for things to be built on top of Bitcoin. So I'm confused about whether your argument here is just an extension of your "Bitcoin will only ever be used as money" thesis or whether it's specific to sidechains due to merge mining or for some other reason.
yes, that's what i'm saying. the danger being that of building speculative asset trading directly into the protocol facilitated by a conflicted spvp. i think it deprecates the money function we currently enjoy and introduces unacceptable risk. and it certainly hasn't been proven to work. and i am fine with things being built on top of Bitcoin as long as they bring value and compete fairly. I suppose whether or not it deprecates the money function comes down to the exact nature of the change to the protocol. "Devs gotta dev" means we should see more and more big projects doing amazing futuristic things that really end up going nowhere since they are way too advanced. It also presumably means VCs and other investors will "follow the shiny thing" until it burns them enough (too many investments in Bitcoin 2.0 that vaporize), and that could be what Austin Hill is doing now. However, it seems you're worried about the collateral damage in the meantime. Is that right? yes. and i think SC's deviate from Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin as Money. a digital gold standard so to speak. |
|
|
|
a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.
The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger. now you're rolling.  this is why i call it dilutional to Bitcoins current core function and value; that of money. not only that, a SC for stock would introduce a time preference demand into the equation. whereas BTC currency is supposed to be highly liquid and hold value, a stock is a long term investment and introduces risk which negates Bitcoins money function in aggregate. i would argue that the non US world could care less about Bitcoin as a vehicle to invest in stocks, bonds, etc. they only care about the SOV money function. Americans only care about this too for the most part if you look at the stats (relatively low participation). if we start diverting our attention away from the core problem for which Satoshi built Bitcoin, that as money, it just becomes another WoW trading platform game. |
|
|
|
|
here's another hint at Satoshi's original intentions in targeting the money function only. he titled the original Bitcoin thread thusly:
"Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper."
|
|
|
|
Are you mainly saying that the incentive structures for mining change in unpredictable ways if speculative assets are built straight into the money itself, rather than those assets simply being denominated in the money, like how the DOW is denominated in dollars? If that's what you're saying, I might agree. I'm not sure I see any problem with the incentives, but I also can't rule out a problem. The precautionary principle. This would extend to things like Counterparty, yes?
Wait, I'm pretty sure you said before that it's fine for things to be built on top of Bitcoin. So I'm confused about whether your argument here is just an extension of your "Bitcoin will only ever be used as money" thesis or whether it's specific to sidechains due to merge mining or for some other reason.
yes, that's what i'm saying. the danger being that of building speculative asset trading directly into the protocol facilitated by a conflicted spvp. i think it deprecates the money function we currently enjoy and introduces unacceptable risk. and it certainly hasn't been proven to work. and i am fine with things being built on top of Bitcoin as long as they bring value and compete fairly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
