Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 03:24:45 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 [821] 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1980507 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 12:52:52 AM
 #16401

I am also done arguing with you.

You have conveniently avoided most of my posts and have responded to none of my questions.

Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post

What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words.

if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. this is where dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security.  this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money.

We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply.

Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted.

Can you address that with sound, reasonable arguments?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1506223485
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506223485

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506223485
Reply with quote  #2

1506223485
Report to moderator
1506223485
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506223485

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506223485
Reply with quote  #2

1506223485
Report to moderator
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506223485
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506223485

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506223485
Reply with quote  #2

1506223485
Report to moderator
1506223485
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506223485

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506223485
Reply with quote  #2

1506223485
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 01:24:25 AM
 #16402

like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.   Roll Eyes  

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?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
 #16403

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.

No no no. How can you still say this!? Altcoins can not claim the "risk free put" feature. Either they are altcoin or scBTC. Anyone will be able to verify if the peg is effectively 1:1, it doesn't matter what the coin promoter advertises.

Advertising that you can switch between BTC & TC freely is no indication that the peg is 1:1. It is merely a decentralized exchange process between an altcoin and BTC. This feature alone is not enough to fuel demand for a particular altcoins.

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:

So again your argument is a more elaborate scam scheme leveraging the "sidechain" brand and using an altcoin will lead to the demise of Bitcoin? You do realize such deceptive schemes can only work so much until the community of fools in general is better advised and has learn from their foolish mistake?

The honeybadger doesn't care about petty criminal schemes. The market, with time, punishes bad actors and create trusted communities around good ones. Good money drives out bad money. Your altscams are in no way a significant threat to Bitcoin. They only threaten idiots and greedy, ill-advised investors.

SCs 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.

Spectacularly wrong, again. Yes, speculation might guarantee SOME mining. Unfortunately SOME mining makes your stupid TC considerably less secure than the BTC blockchain. A situation already observable with conventional altcoins.

So now we have two reasons why the market should and will avoid your scamcoin :
1. Inherently less secure
2. Proposes a scammy altcoin as its monetary unit instead of using the safer 1:1 peg

Remember that no matter the feature your scamcoin will claim, there will be one created exactly the same BUT attracting more users because of its safer, more risk-averse 1:1 peg.

Unprofitable Bitcoin miners can defect to speculate on becoming early adopter of ALTCOIN for block rewards ALREADY. Sidechains do not enable this possibility nor do they come with better equipped altcoins.

If TC becomes popular enough = if ALTcoin becomes popular enough. History shows this is not likely to happen significantly enought to endanger Bitcoin's leading position. It does not matter how many are created, the majority of them will be as irrelevant and insignificant to BTC's value than any other alts.

It seems you are still unable to answer these questions with clear arguments void of distraction and fallacious assumptions :

What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 01:59:47 AM
 #16404

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?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:15:43 AM
 #16405

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.

1. Why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin?

2. What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

3. What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:23:38 AM
 #16406

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:33:21 AM
 #16407

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?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:41:06 AM
 #16408

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 2 altcoins for 1 altcoin or vice versa.  i might accept the fact that the altcoin might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the altcoin 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 still don't get it do you? It is altcoins you are afraid of, sidechains is not your enemy.

I'm done with you. You can consider this a win. You're just too dense and shallow for me to want to deal with your FUD and disingenous arguments anymore.

I don't want to make you look like more of a fool than you already have in your own thread. Enjoy you win. But remember, sidechain are not gonna go away. They are a good thing and will benefit Bitcoin much more than any of your scamcoins can hurt it.

Enjoy the longterm crow.

(btw you never answered my question)



"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 02:43:00 AM
 #16409

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?
A clue, maybe?

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhphi2

Quote
Some people in the Bitcoin ecosystem push on ideas like red-listing which I think are very fundamentally anti-bitcoin, and every time that kind of stuff comes up I become ill thinking about all the political work that goes into protecting bitcoin as an autonomous trustless system.

I don't have any difficulty believing there's a lot of threats, bribes, plots, counter-plots, and general skulduggery going on behind the scenes, beginning at least as early as late 2012. Why wouldn't sidechains be part of that general trend?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:43:37 AM
 #16410

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:49:46 AM
 #16411

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

NotLambChop, is that you  Huh

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  Grin


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:52:12 AM
 #16412

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

NotLambChop, is that you  Huh

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  Grin



then answer the Q
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 02:59:22 AM
 #16413

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.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 03:11:52 AM
 #16414

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 believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 03:20:22 AM
 #16415

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

NotLambChop, is that you  Huh

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  Grin



answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 03:27:16 AM
 #16416

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

NotLambChop, is that you  Huh

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  Grin



answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

 Cheesy Cheesy




"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 03:29:53 AM
 #16417

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

NotLambChop, is that you  Huh

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny  Grin



answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

brg444 refusing to answer and hiding


fine, i'll make it bigger.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 03:48:52 AM
 #16418

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.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 04:01:58 AM
 #16419

First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger.

But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all?


I suggest you read Adrian's very good post that indicate valuable utility SC will be MM at possibly the same hashing power than BTC.
It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 04:06:35 AM
 #16420

It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

I have adressed your conclusions in this post

this was one of your most sensible post and it seems you have come around to some my line of thinking. there are some things I take exception with though...

Somewhat, if value is created on a SC that is greater than that of Bitcoin the Bitcoin stays there.

It is not that the value is greater but merely different. Sidechains serve a different utility than BTC. Some might value convenience more (SC), others prefer security & liquidity (BTC).

Decentralized SC that function as a means of exchange and use merged mining will probably offer the most security miners will mine all viable ones and the difficulty will be in close equilibrium with Bitcoin. They can be thought off as secure as Bitcoin.

I'm glad you are able to come to that conclusion as well. Some it appears are to shortsighted to believe this could happen.

The users will go wherever it's most cost effective to exchange value, on the SC an increase in value is reflected in the price of Bitcoin, however that increase in value is attributed to being the biggest network with the lower fees, this increase in BTC value won't be reflected in mining revenue because it comes at the expense of sacrificing profits, leaving the network less secure.

I'm having some problem with that train of thought. First, it seems to me that the increase in value is not originated on the SC. Some will suggest that scBTC are traded on exchange but I don't find that to be convenient for users. Who would buy a premium scBTC on exchange when you can buy a regular BTC and convert it 1:1? Therefore, it is BTC's value that increases because of users finding value in the attached SCs.

Having said that, I'm not sure about the jump you're making about Bitcoin "sacrificing profits" and miners subsequently leaving the network less secure. Maybe you can expand on that?

The SC that offer additional utility at a premium or greatest arbitrage will alow miners to grow and secure the network, that hashing power is distributed over the whole network, those coins that earn the most for miners, when this type of growth happens will incentivized to mine those SC, they will drive new investment in mining and become more secure. In this case this network will be growing and Bitcoin and other SC will be getting the benefits of added security.

Agree with most of that

This growth is inflationary taking value out of Bitcoin, the market locks it in. I'd only consider the growth inflationary because that is value on top of Bitcoin in that scenario Bitcoin is dragged up but it's not the source of the growth.

As stated above, I disagree with that logic. Bitcoin is the source of the growth because Bitcoin is the underlying monetary unit. Users will buy BTC to participate in this economy and access the different SCs. Bitcoin is never "dragged up".

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Pages: « 1 ... 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 [821] 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!