^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.
I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far. I couldn't resist the cypherdoc bait. I'm sorry I'm done now, I promise. No more feeding the troll. I'll gladly entertain arguments with you gentlemen but this cypherdoc.. he's so dishonest and desperate  .. I cannot stand him anymore and you're still a little POS who won't answer the question b/c you're so dishonest and deceptive: why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem for Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
answer the question, you little piece of shit. who are you anyway? who hired you? fine, i'll make it bigger. |
|
|
|
answer the question, you little piece of shit. who are you anyway? who hired you? |
|
|
|
|
why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?
brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else. thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's: gvt inflation for Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?
are you now unfair too?
|
|
|
|
you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC. and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1. it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets. you keep making the same error.
are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?
You're missing the fact that you accepted this scenario made no sense at all because there is no reason for the indepedent TC to exist. I, the user, only care about the 1:1 peg, I want no part of your floating price scammy garbagecoin. It is asinine to believe a sidechain would want to support two monetary unit that are not fungible. No use case for this, no incentive for any significant part of the market to participate in such an obviously scammy scheme. Wire this into your brain, the market is gonna be presented with two scenario : Sidechain A : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg as monetary unit. No danger of inflation for the users' stake : value is preserved through the peg. Absent of typical native currency volatility. Sidechain B : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg but for some obscure, unidentified reasons, attaches a scammy altcoin that is not fungible, offers no distinguishable advantage over the pegged unit and exposes the user to dangerous volatility that is natural to bootstrapped altcoins with shady initial distribution. Unless you present me with a plausible scenario where the bootstrapped altcoin would be of significant interest to the user, then your pipe dream scenario holds no ground. I will answer your question when you answer mine. You haven't, yet. b/c the answer is not an A or B, it's not a 0 or a 1, it's not true or false, it's not either or, it's not black or white. ppl will make decisions based on shades of grey and everything in btwn. just b/c you won't do it doesn't mean that millions of other ppl with different opinions, values, likes, dislikes, views on monetary theory WON'T DO IT. there are plenty of speculators who will want access to prediction markets, just like keystroke. i might even like to play it out of interest or as a hobby. i might not care that i get 2TC for 1scBTC or vice versa. i might accept the fact that the TC might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the TC offers. you are such a lame brain that you still can't see this. that ppl come in all shapes and varieties with different objectives, values and interest. you're embarassing yourself with your black and white scenarios. now answer my question. |
|
|
|
|
you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC. and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1. it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets. you keep making the same error.
are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you? why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.  there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC. for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk. this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain. and they can sell that to ordinary users who will gladly use them by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp. after all, it's true, right? the peg works? look at the Truthcoin ad below:  the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke. you'll see claims like "Truthcoin: Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0". it's all there:  SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue. once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today. you can't say that won't happen. you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again. unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC. it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg. if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv. they won't all fail and they will be competition for Bitcoin. this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's. now your turn to answer a question. why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem? |
|
|
|
basically your problem comes down to this: you think you can control speculation by using SC's. i think you are very wrong on this. altcoin devs are going to have a field day with SC's of all types: corporations, banks, reward programs. hell, even Austin Hill wants gvts to have one. Jack Liu has all sorts of ideas too: http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-comingmy arguments have pidgeon holed you down to a scenario that HAS to play out for SC's to work as you envision: 2 utility chains for fast txs and anonynity with 100% MM and NO SPECULATIVE SC's. that expectation of yours is ludicrous. we already have TC and keystroke IRL examples of what's coming. we have the whitepaper talking about Freicoin demurrage coin, section 5.2 Issued assets, pg 15 talks about complementary currencies, pg 16: Subsidy.
A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively
forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result
would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.these are all coming with SC's yet you persist with your delusions. |
|
|
|
do i have to remind you again? these sidecoins are going to happen to SC's whether you like or not as well. you will have to live with that crow for the rest of your life. they are going to love the fact that they can suck BTC off MC so easily BTC--->scBTC--->2TC at no charge. they can't believe you're letting them into the house! |
|
|
|
like you address any of the thousands of points i have made. there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC. for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk. this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain. and they can sell that to ordinary users by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp. after all, it's true, right? look at the Truthcoin ad below: the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke. you'll see claims like "Truthcoin: Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0". it's all there: SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue. once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today. you can't say that won't happen. you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again. unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC. it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg. if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv. they won't all fail. this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's. now your turn to answer a question. why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies? how is that not a problem? |
|
|
|
seriously brg444, you have go me laughing so hard right now at your ludicrousy my wife thinks something is wrong.
i am literally in tears:
I love that I have turned yourself into a troll unable to realize the foolishness of his position and piggybacking off others argument to support your desperate stance. I can tell that your credibility has taken a shot since this all began. Maybe this is what is making you lose reason? lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough. you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create. |
|
|
|
why do we get this from Poelstra?
You might want to read the "purpose" section of this document. This is effectively a PSA against the danger of altcoins creation & adoption. It is essentially there to discourage people with ill-intented ideas from participating in such activities. I read this as a "PROCEED WITH CAUTION". Andrew expresses his disappointement in the travesty that has become the creation of crypto-money. A vocation once fueled by motives like innovation and advancement of cryptography has turned into a gimmick full of scams, speculation and just to drive the point home : memes. With the advent of sidechains Andrew and the team incapacitate altcoins by removing the #1 argument they are using to lure foolish investors into their scheme : innovation. Innovation is no more reserved to sidechains. This notion is also why scams like your own's favorite Truthcoin are now at least half less likely to succeed. The reason it is so is because a clone that offers the same features/innovation while respecting the 1:1 peg will be created. you're missing the point again. TC is probably going to maintain the 1:1 peg. if not, i would advise them to do so to fool ppl like you who don't understand what's going on so that you can still get fleeced by being tempted to trade 1scBTC for perhaps an inflationary 2TC. Provided with that risk free option, the market will inevitably favor the option that preserves the value of their investment by recognizing their stake in the primary ledger/mainchain. And where the market goes, the miners goes. the reason it hasn't happened is b/c the only coin that has been MM'd on top of Bitcoin has been Namecoin out of public service. so no, the guys conclusions are not wrong or invalidated. btw, that's dooglus aka Chris Moore, a very talented Bitcoin early adopter who if you take the time to look is a MAJOR contributor #8 in reputation, right up there behind Pieter Wiullie, in total rankings to Bitcoin Stack Exchange and our understanding of what Bitcoin is, so fuck off:
I couldn't care less who he is, he was wrong in his assumption (reasonable at the time) that this was a threat to Bitcoin. so much disrespect for so many ahead of and more experienced than you. you said this: Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right.
you completely ignore that there is no sign of his being proven wrong either. lol. man, my belly hurts from laughing at you. you've become absurd. |
|
|
|
seriously brg444, you have go me laughing so hard right now at your ludicrousy my wife thinks something is wrong. i am literally in tears:  |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that. again, no substance or imagination from you!: Oh, I see. Laying prostrate before the Feds and explaining everything that is remotely associated with Bitcoin is a sufficiently imaginative strategy then? I'll set my mind to imagining how that strategy will end up...thinking...Got it: 'Poorly'. Say, you didn't get hooked up with CoinValidation with the expectation that your stash would be perma-cleared or something did you? I know we've been through this before, but I cannot shake the whiff of something stinky going down here. Sorry to ask. lol, you and brg444 desperately heaving loads of shit trying to get at least something to stick!!!   |
|
|
|
|
brg444, i love you man!
when you jumped in here we were at 450000 views iirc, now we're at 620369. that's over 170000 views just b/c of you!
you're gonna make me famous! thank you!
|
|
|
|
Thank you for making my point! You are exactly what I was looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin! And they said it won't happen Answer: it might not be a scam! But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition . I'm sorry but you have sorely misunderstood the gist of the comment in the link you posted. Worse, you mistakingly figured it would support your arguments. lol, you love to try and say i'm wrong even when i'm right; as you admit below, i correctly understood what the guy is saying but since you think he is wrong, somehow i am wrong also simply b/c it disagrees with your view dude, you're fouling me even when i'm nowhere close to receiving a pass!
Merged-mining, the way it was described in this comment, is essentally supporting multiple competing currencies : altcoins
Now sidechains, as I hope you have come to understand from our discussions, do not enable altcoins in any significant way.
wrong--->Truthcoin! and its first customer: not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market.The primary use case of sidechains is not to bootstrap altcoins on top of them.
you won't be able to control this anymore than you already have
In fact, to most of the Blockstream developers (from comments read), this mere notion is absurd. Sidechains were not created to "go to war & destroy" altcoins as you might like to think. In reality, altcoins are simply made irrelevant.
While you seem to have problem with "devs dev-ing" this is what they do : use technology to improve processes. Did the Blockstream guys dislike scammy alts? Of course, everyone does. Did they find important to leverage altcoins' innovation to improve the Bitcoin ecosystem? My opinion is this is the idea here.
why do we get this from Poelstra? Seen this yet? https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdfOf course, “developing your own cryptosystem” is the purview of only cranks and researchers, so it was reasonably assumed that none of these “altcoins”, as they were called, could ever be plausibly presented for public use.
Boy, were we ever wrong on that one.
...
If you are, or are planning to, develop and release an “altcoin” to the public, this document reminds you that you are playing with fire. This sort of behavior was cute on sci.crypt, a community populated mainly by cryptographic experts where there was no risk that your charlatanism would be mistaken for anything legitimate, and where there was no ability to store value in your scheme anyway.
...
The Bitcoin community differs in both those respects. Your crankery is not cute. You are not a cryptographer, and yet are releasing a homebrew cryptosystem, misrepresenting your own qualifications, and encouraging others to store value in your creation. These actions are incompetent, dishonest and reprehensibly dangerous.
lol. That's Andrew Poelstra's "A Treatise on Altcoins". He's even harsher than many of us in this thread! He's also listed as an author on the sidechains whitepaper. At any given time there is a certain amount of demand for a Bitcoin like currency to make transactions. That need doesn’t increase with more competition. That means that the transactional demand for Bitcoin is really the same as the transactional demand for all substantially similar forms of payment. As more currencies are competing to fill the same demand they actually reduce the demand for the other currencies as they become more widely used. This theory is blatantly ignorant of network effect. This is another reason why I found it strange for you to pull this one up from the 2012 cementary where it belong.. You do realize this guy is the 2012 version of you Essentially, his proposition is that because of merged-mining, Bitcoins' competing currencies will leverage the security of the network and create a race to the bottom for the most "cost-effective" currency. Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right. Additionally, Bitcoin's network effect has been growing along, making it even less probable. you just fouled out. the reason it hasn't happened is b/c the only coin that has been MM'd on top of Bitcoin has been Namecoin out of public service. so no, the guys conclusions are not wrong or invalidated. btw, that's dooglus aka Chris Moore, a very talented Bitcoin early adopter who if you take the time to look is a MAJOR contributor #8 in reputation, right up there behind Pieter Wiullie, in total rankings to Bitcoin Stack Exchange and our understanding of what Bitcoin is, so fuck off:
Basically the idea is that you assemble a Namecoin block and hash it, and then insert that hash into a Bitcoin block. Now when you solve the Bitcoin block at a difficulty level greater to or equal to the Namecoin difficulty level, it will be proof that that amount of work has been done for the Namecoin block. The Namecoin protocol has been altered to accept a Bitcoin block (solved at or above the Namecoin difficulty level) containing a hash of a Namecoin block as proof of work for the Namecoin block. The Bitcoin block will only be acceptable to the Bitcoin network if it is at the difficulty of the Bitcoin network.
The Bitcoin block chain gets a single extra hash when a merged mining block is accepted, and the Namecoin block chain gets a little bit more (because it includes the Bitcoin block) when a merged mining block is accepted. However, because of the Merkle Tree, the entire Bitcoin block doesn’t need to be included in the Namecoin tree, just the top level hashes (so the extra bloat to the Namecoin chain is not a big problem).
Since you make more money mining both Namecoins and Bitcoins miners will eventually all do merged mining, and the difficulty level for all block chains will eventually be the same.
Furthermore, the economic incentive to mine will be the combined economic incentive of all networks, making all networks more secure. Of course this allows competing networks (with different inflation rates) to quickly become secure. This subjects Bitcoin to more competition.
Ultimately the value of Bitcoin is a reflection of the need for Bitcoins to make exchanges. The more people using Bitcoin to make purchases, the more demand there is for Bitcoins, and the higher the price of Bitcoins goes. (Speculation also raises the price, but long term speculation is essentially a bet that the transactional demand for Bitcoin will increase in the future.) The higher the price, the higher the incentive to mine.
At any given time there is a certain amount of demand for a Bitcoin like currency to make transactions. That need doesn’t increase with more competition. That means that the transactional demand for Bitcoin is really the same as the transactional demand for all substantially similar forms of payment. As more currencies are competing to fill the same demand they actually reduce the demand for the other currencies as they become more widely used.
This means that ultimately, to the extent that currencies are interchangeable to end users, merged mining does not increase the overall security of the networks. The demand for currencies drives the price (and thus the value of the reward). Increased demand for any given currency results in decreased demand for others, lowering the incentive to mine for the other currencies. The total incentive is a function of total demand for all Bitcoin like currencies.
Except now competing currencies can market themselves as “as secure as Bitcoin but with lower transaction fees.” In other words there is a race to the bottom among competing currencies to offer the lowest transaction fees, because lowering the transaction fee doesn’t hurt the security of the network in comparison to the other merged mining networks. Users, following their own self interest, will adopt the currency with the lowest transaction fees as long as it has the same security of the competitors.
This will increase the price of the currency with the lowest transaction fee (because demand for the currency is higher), and decrease the price of the currencies with higher transactions fees (because demand for those currencies is dropping as it is being filled by demand for the competing currency). Because the currencies with the higher transaction fees were the ones generating the incentive to mine, overall incentive to mine will diminish. As long as a currency’s mining is merged with the freeloading currency, it will be powerless to increase incentives by imposing mandatory transaction fees.
The result will be a decrease in mining incentive, a decrease in mining, and ultimately all networks that allow merged mining will become insecure.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that. again, no substance or imagination from you!: You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.
Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.
Edit2:
Architecture
<bitcoin>
<crypto-noteSC> - decentralized network btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
<scBTC - asset>
<scDrug - asset>
<silkRoadSC-1 /> - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
<silkRoadSC-2 /> - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
</crypto-noteSC>
</bitcoin>
From sidechain.pdf A suitably extended scripting system and an asset-aware transaction format would allow the
creation of useful transactions from well-audited components, such as the merger of a bid and
an ask to form an exchange transaction, enabling the creation of completely trustless peer-to-peer
marketplaces for asset exchange and more complex contracts such as trustless options[FT13]. These
contracts could, for example, help reduce the volatility of bitcoin itself.
no one's doubting you except for unimaginative, narrow minded, pidgeon-holed shills around here who think only non-speculative up & up businesses will be exploiting SC's. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
