Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[inca]

What got me first into bitcoin was a talk by Rick falvinge from a 2012 bitcoin conference. He talked about the rise of the internet and the end of banking. Superb, funny and to the point.

Did you hear his talk at the 2011 bitcoin conference in Prague, too? It's worth a watch, although parts are similar to the 2012 London one.

Actually I am mistaken. It was that one. But I only watched it in december 2012

[tvbcof]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.

[cypherdoc]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.

[cypherdoc]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

[Adrian-x]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.

I like your approach but with alts someone gets your Bitcoin, in effect the demand for Bitcoin is inherent in the trade and the Bitcoin network grows as a result scam or not.

With SC your approach is more conservative than with alts, I expect we'd see as many scam attempts with SC as we've seen with alts.

My question is should that feature be enabled at the protocol level when we have technology to do the same thing with Bitcoin on an application layer like OT?

Loved that Unix programming story earlier.

[brg444]

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers

much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure.

[Adrian-x]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.

Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

[brg444]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.

Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

Are the sidechains "rules" not set in stone at its creation?

[cypherdoc]

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers

much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure.

would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?

[markj113]

Bitcoin collapsing, Gold on the up?

http://www.thechinamoneyreport.com/2014/10/25/gold-at-7000-article-goes-viral-in-chinese-media/

[cypherdoc]

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

And if so why hasn't Maxwell warned us of this?

[brg444]

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible.

but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there

[cypherdoc]

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible.

but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there

and why don't I see Maxwell warning us of that?

[Melbustus]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.

Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

Are the sidechains "rules" not set in stone at its creation?

"any deterministic function". At the extreme, the exchange rate can therefore be dynamically set through time using some Oracle as an input. In theory.

[tvbcof]

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

Why the fuck would I do that?  It makes no sense.  The whole point is that one can keep their nest-egg in Bitcoin and use other solutions as needed for buying trinkets, tipping people, buying shit from 'licensed' entities, preserving financial privacy when needed, etc.

Bitcoin is to sidechains as Gold is to Bitcoin in my conception of the world.  The fact that Bitcoin is still driving forward with 'good ideas' needed to achieve the goal of being everything to everyone is by far the biggest reason I don't risk more in using it as a value store.  Sidechains could almost completely illuminate that deficiency in Bitcoin.  And better yet it could do so before it's what in my mind is 'to late.'

[brg444]

would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

I am not so much interested in sidechains supported by native currencies. They are essentially altcoins and I have historically stayed away from these.

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is. In that case, price of the unit ideally gravitates toward parity with original BTC for reasons discussed before in this thread. It is possible the BTC unit resting on a sidechain would have a slightly discounted market price for security concerns but I expect that gap to significantly narrow once/if technology matures.

[brg444]

"any deterministic function". At the extreme, the exchange rate can therefore be dynamically set through time using some Oracle as an input. In theory.

Of course, but these rules are hard coded into the sidechain so one knows what to expect before moving his BTC there.

My point is I don't believe the sidechain can magically change its rule and dispossess everyone of their BTC. Unless there existed a backdoor which I expect anyway would be identified after careful review of the code.

[tvbcof]

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

So what?  Would you agree that someone can lose their Bitcoin private key?

And if so why hasn't Maxwell warned us of this?

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)

[cypherdoc]

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)

it's not obvious given my reading of the paper.  maybe to you and me, but not the average person.

why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper?

[brg444]

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)

it's not obvious given my reading of the paper.  maybe to you and me, but not the average person.

why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper?

You are being really disingenous again.

Did Satoshi warn about the dangers of altscams in the Bitcoin white paper?