Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:38:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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] 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013509 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 06:56:39 PM
 #17241

The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

Let's do a little thought experiment to try to come up with a reasonable answer.  The purpose of the thought experiment is to isolate the effect of the 2-way peg; it's meant to be a tool to help us understand where the value is actually stored, and not meant to represent plausible future scenarios.  We'll ask what happens to the value of scBTC should the 2-way peg be instantly and permanently severed (and the locked BTC on the main chain frozen).  If one argues that the value is always stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain, then I think in all cases the value of scBTC should fall to zero.  It's pretty clear to me that that won't actually happen in all cases:

Case #1: Small sidechain backed by 0.01% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a small sidechain used, perhaps, for experimentation with faster confirmation times.  Very little real economic activity takes place on this side chain.  When the 2-way peg is severed, I believe the value of scBTC#1 would drop rapidly to zero, as everyone would realize that another sidechain employing the same features but maintaining the BTC backing could easily be recreated.  The network effect is too small to matter.

--> value is stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.

Case #2: Large sidechain backed by 10% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a large sidechain that perhaps employs ring-signatures for improved anonymity.  This scBTC#2 has become the token of choice for black-market activity such as the purchase of illicit goods from SilkRoad 3.0.  When the 2-way peg is severed in this case, the value does not fall to zero. The value immediately drops, because many individuals would prefer to hold BTC than unbacked scBTC#2.  However, it does not drop to zero because speculators and scBTC#2 users realize that the huge network of users and wallet infrastructure already set up to accept scBTC#2 will maintain demand for unbacked scBTC#2.  scBTC#2 becomes an alt coin and trades with a floating exchange rate with respect to main-chain BTC.

--> value is stored in both Bitcoin's Blockchain and the sidechain ledger.  

Case #3: Uber sidechain backed by 60% of the main-chain BTC

Here we consider the case where the majority of bitcoins are stored on the sidechain.  Perhaps this sidechain is just "better" than bitcoin, and there's a huge push by merchants to move all economic activity here.  Speculators also decide to move their BTC to this sidechain, as they fear that a severing of the 2-way peg would hurt the value of their main-chain BTC (they see that the network-effects of this sidechain are becoming greater than Bitcoin's).  Now when the 2-way peg is severed, I would argue that it would be the value of bitcoin that would fall and the value of scBTC would actually rise!  Scarcity of scBTC#3 is actually greater once the peg is severed (no more main-chain BTC can be converted) and since the majority of economic activity is taking place on this chain, the ledger for scBTC#3 becomes the dominant "memory" for our money.    

--> value is stored mostly on the sidechain ledger.  


Once again, the purpose of this thought experiment was not to propose "realistic scenarios"; the purpose was to help answer the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  I think the answer is that for low-levels of adoption, the value remains stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.  But as the network effect of the sidechain grows, a larger component of the value is actually stored on the sidechain's ledger.  


I think this is right. The same using other words: There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed. It also means that while the peg is intact, the holding preference would be with bitcoin in cases #1 and #2, and with scBTC in case #3. This will suppress the usage of scBTC #1 and #2, and may render them less and less liquid.

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.


Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511498286
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498286

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498286
Reply with quote  #2

1511498286
Report to moderator
1511498286
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498286

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498286
Reply with quote  #2

1511498286
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:03:31 PM
 #17242

The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

Let's do a little thought experiment to try to come up with a reasonable answer.  The purpose of the thought experiment is to isolate the effect of the 2-way peg; it's meant to be a tool to help us understand where the value is actually stored, and not meant to represent plausible future scenarios.  We'll ask what happens to the value of scBTC should the 2-way peg be instantly and permanently severed (and the locked BTC on the main chain frozen).  If one argues that the value is always stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain, then I think in all cases the value of scBTC should fall to zero.  It's pretty clear to me that that won't actually happen in all cases:

Case #1: Small sidechain backed by 0.01% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a small sidechain used, perhaps, for experimentation with faster confirmation times.  Very little real economic activity takes place on this side chain.  When the 2-way peg is severed, I believe the value of scBTC#1 would drop rapidly to zero, as everyone would realize that another sidechain employing the same features but maintaining the BTC backing could easily be recreated.  The network effect is too small to matter.

--> value is stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.

Case #2: Large sidechain backed by 10% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a large sidechain that perhaps employs ring-signatures for improved anonymity.  This scBTC#2 has become the token of choice for black-market activity such as the purchase of illicit goods from SilkRoad 3.0.  When the 2-way peg is severed in this case, the value does not fall to zero. The value immediately drops, because many individuals would prefer to hold BTC than unbacked scBTC#2.  However, it does not drop to zero because speculators and scBTC#2 users realize that the huge network of users and wallet infrastructure already set up to accept scBTC#2 will maintain demand for unbacked scBTC#2.  scBTC#2 becomes an alt coin and trades with a floating exchange rate with respect to main-chain BTC.

--> value is stored in both Bitcoin's Blockchain and the sidechain ledger.  

Case #3: Uber sidechain backed by 60% of the main-chain BTC

Here we consider the case where the majority of bitcoins are stored on the sidechain.  Perhaps this sidechain is just "better" than bitcoin, and there's a huge push by merchants to move all economic activity here.  Speculators also decide to move their BTC to this sidechain, as they fear that a severing of the 2-way peg would hurt the value of their main-chain BTC (they see that the network-effects of this sidechain are becoming greater than Bitcoin's).  Now when the 2-way peg is severed, I would argue that it would be the value of bitcoin that would fall and the value of scBTC would actually rise!  Scarcity of scBTC#3 is actually greater once the peg is severed (no more main-chain BTC can be converted) and since the majority of economic activity is taking place on this chain, the ledger for scBTC#3 becomes the dominant "memory" for our money.    

--> value is stored mostly on the sidechain ledger.  


Once again, the purpose of this thought experiment was not to propose "realistic scenarios"; the purpose was to help answer the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  I think the answer is that for low-levels of adoption, the value remains stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.  But as the network effect of the sidechain grows, a larger component of the value is actually stored on the sidechain's ledger.  


Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:04:04 PM
 #17243

the whole point that Peter R is trying to make is that with SC's, value gets "shared" btwn MC and all SC's.  with the potential of being "severed" or "fragmented". 

we don't want that with Bitcoin.  we want it ALL on the mainchain.  we want all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table.

who here wants to share value with Truthcoin?

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 07:07:10 PM
 #17244

The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

Let's do a little thought experiment to try to come up with a reasonable answer.  The purpose of the thought experiment is to isolate the effect of the 2-way peg; it's meant to be a tool to help us understand where the value is actually stored, and not meant to represent plausible future scenarios.  We'll ask what happens to the value of scBTC should the 2-way peg be instantly and permanently severed (and the locked BTC on the main chain frozen).  If one argues that the value is always stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain, then I think in all cases the value of scBTC should fall to zero.  It's pretty clear to me that that won't actually happen in all cases:

Case #1: Small sidechain backed by 0.01% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a small sidechain used, perhaps, for experimentation with faster confirmation times.  Very little real economic activity takes place on this side chain.  When the 2-way peg is severed, I believe the value of scBTC#1 would drop rapidly to zero, as everyone would realize that another sidechain employing the same features but maintaining the BTC backing could easily be recreated.  The network effect is too small to matter.

--> value is stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.

Case #2: Large sidechain backed by 10% of the main-chain BTC

Here we have a large sidechain that perhaps employs ring-signatures for improved anonymity.  This scBTC#2 has become the token of choice for black-market activity such as the purchase of illicit goods from SilkRoad 3.0.  When the 2-way peg is severed in this case, the value does not fall to zero. The value immediately drops, because many individuals would prefer to hold BTC than unbacked scBTC#2.  However, it does not drop to zero because speculators and scBTC#2 users realize that the huge network of users and wallet infrastructure already set up to accept scBTC#2 will maintain demand for unbacked scBTC#2.  scBTC#2 becomes an alt coin and trades with a floating exchange rate with respect to main-chain BTC.

--> value is stored in both Bitcoin's Blockchain and the sidechain ledger.  

Case #3: Uber sidechain backed by 60% of the main-chain BTC

Here we consider the case where the majority of bitcoins are stored on the sidechain.  Perhaps this sidechain is just "better" than bitcoin, and there's a huge push by merchants to move all economic activity here.  Speculators also decide to move their BTC to this sidechain, as they fear that a severing of the 2-way peg would hurt the value of their main-chain BTC (they see that the network-effects of this sidechain are becoming greater than Bitcoin's).  Now when the 2-way peg is severed, I would argue that it would be the value of bitcoin that would fall and the value of scBTC would actually rise!  Scarcity of scBTC#3 is actually greater once the peg is severed (no more main-chain BTC can be converted) and since the majority of economic activity is taking place on this chain, the ledger for scBTC#3 becomes the dominant "memory" for our money.    

--> value is stored mostly on the sidechain ledger.  


Once again, the purpose of this thought experiment was not to propose "realistic scenarios"; the purpose was to help answer the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  I think the answer is that for low-levels of adoption, the value remains stored on Bitcoin's Blockchain.  But as the network effect of the sidechain grows, a larger component of the value is actually stored on the sidechain's ledger.  
Thanks for this.
Value = convertibility + utility
And in all 3 examples is decided by market forces.

Failure modes are usually one of the best places to start looking for the hooks.
How does something fail?  How can it be made to fail most safely, and in what ways can it not be made safe?

I would consider the effects of different failure modes on these scenarios.
They start with the assumption that the 2wp is broken and that convertibility is lost but this can happen in many different ways and for different causes.
The BTC may remain locked or not in different types.  If locked and no convertibility they are burned and deflate BTC, or they may be unlocked and re-inflate BTC.  Or there are hybrids.

In one of the previous examples we had:

 MC
 |   \
SC1 SC3
 |   /
SC2

Where SC1 had rogue devs/miners who inflated it with new assets or subverted the proofs so no SC2 would convert back to SC1 and so convertibility was lost.
Subsequently SC3 is set up to restore convertibility because SC2 had such utility that it kept going and new owner folks wanted to (somewhat) regain the convertibility aspects (including new issuance from SPV).

So now you have SC2 with some BTC convertible back to MC and some not.

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
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:09:37 PM
 #17245

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system. 

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 07:11:05 PM
 #17246

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

Gold distribution certainly changed from these, and became more centralized after leaving its current money uses behind.

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:16:55 PM
 #17247

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system. 

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
 #17248


There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i don't necessarily agree with this.  those ETF's and egold had to hold physical gold which "backs" those derivatives, whereas with SC's, BTC units are "transformed" into something totally different and then ride on less secure SC's.  these speculative assets i think are worth less than the original BTC.  if they get hacked or fail, those BTC are locked up forever, which i don't think necessarily translates into higher value for the rest of us still on MC.  it could erode confidence.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:23:03 PM
 #17249

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

This is why we want spvp -> to avoid human failures (like goxBTC).
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:27:52 PM
 #17250

Its sad but true that I think OT never really took off because it couldn't be used as a get rich scheme or P&D Sad The OT client for grandma offered what a 500btc bounty or something crazy? But noone ever did it and I don't think those bounty awarders are still around to offer that kinda money for the nice client... otherwise I'd prob take a stab at it.
i think its going strong, its the best solution not a failed one.


Haven't heard anyone talk about it but on here.. so I don't consider that strong. A simple gui was needed from grandma that couldn't be done in 3 years of trying? Is that strong software development to you?

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 07:29:51 PM
 #17251

Haven't heard anyone talk about it but on here.. so I don't consider that strong. A simple gui was needed from grandma that couldn't be done in 3 years of trying? Is that strong software development to you?
That you don't understand the problem domain is more a reflection on you than on OT.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:31:58 PM
 #17252


I think this is right. The same using other words: There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed. It also means that while the peg is intact, the holding preference would be with bitcoin in cases #1 and #2, and with scBTC in case #3. This will suppress the usage of scBTC #1 and #2, and may render them less and less liquid.

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Blockstream are attracting big clients, they want to run entire countries on SideChains, one way to grow it is to do a 1934  Gold Reserve Act  and have everyone convert, they could even do it at favorable rates above current exchange rates. you cant dismiss #3 is the point I'm making.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:32:44 PM
 #17253

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion. 

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger.  Erdogan phrased this succinctly:

There is a separate value for the scBTC. When the peg is broken, this value is revealed.

The % of value that is stored on the sidechain is related to the scBTCs utility and network effects, as NewLiberty pointed out:

Value = convertibility + utility/network effects

So value is retained even if convertibility is closed.

But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property.  In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3. 

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:34:12 PM
 #17254

...
In one of the previous examples we had:

 MC
 |   \
SC1 SC3
 |   /
SC2

Where SC1 had rogue devs/miners who inflated it with new assets or subverted the proofs so no SC2 would convert back to SC1 and so convertibility was lost.
Subsequently SC3 is set up to restore convertibility because SC2 had such utility that it kept going and new owner folks wanted to (somewhat) regain the convertibility aspects (including new issuance from SPV).

So now you have SC2 with some BTC convertible back to MC and some not.


Some people who put their confidence in something (sc2) backed by a corrupt value backing (sc1) would lose.  Sidechains are not some magic bullet which nullifies end-user stupidity and provider scammery.  It just makes it possible for end-users to have an alternative to scammery if they want to put in the effort to do due dilligence.  That alternative is found missing in almost every other financial instrument these days (except arguably physical PMs.)


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:37:14 PM
 #17255

[quote author=Peter R link=topic=68655.msg9573468#msg9573468 date=1416252764
But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property.  In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3. 

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.


[/quote]

which brings up my problem with Blockstream.

they have a fiduciary duty aka financial incentive to make it happen regardless.  and given their power positions in core dev, they may be able to make it happen.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:41:02 PM
 #17256

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system. 

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2014, 07:41:20 PM
 #17257

But I'm not sure that these arguments are strong enough to show that SPV sidechains hurt Bitcoin's sound-money property.  In my opinion, this is only possible in Case #3, but, like Erdogan implied, it might be highly unlikely (impossible?) for a sidechain to obtain the status of #3. 

The problem for scBTC in case #3, is that it first will have to survive a period with less freefloating value, so it will have a problem achiveing the status of #3.

Others would claim that a #3 is ultimately inevitable due to the ossification of Bitcoin.
At some point there would become a new SC that would be better in every way for everyone than Bitcoin and those that can exit do when then can do so.

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:42:23 PM
 #17258

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion. 

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger.  Erdogan phrased this succinctly:


I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:43:52 PM
 #17259

Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion. 

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger.  Erdogan phrased this succinctly:


I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.


that statement is a contradiction.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 17, 2014, 07:46:14 PM
 #17260


I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.


Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of the 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases?  I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case.  Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 ... 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!