Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

bang on. also explains the long bull market, metaphorically, VC,s will get to a stage like early mining, at some point its better to invest in BTC than it is to try and make earn it.
the idea isn't to disrupt the economy, its to disrupt the financial system used to run the economy.

Bitcoin is a risk distribution virus, more powerful than any biological weapon, it assimilates and leave a working economy in its wake, all we have to do is protect the DNA that makes it work, punting economic energy into Bitcoin is how it grows.  

VCs will never resort to solely buying BTC. This is an asinine proposition which defeats the whole purpose of their existence.

Tim Draper would be surprised to learn this.
http://www.coindesk.com/tim-draper-revealed-silk-road-bitcoin-auction-winner/

[1714303898]

1714303898

[1714303898]

1714303898

[1714303898]

1714303898

[1714303898]

1714303898

[1714303898]

1714303898

[1714303898]

1714303898

[brg444]

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.

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.  

That is correct, but this value only exist because it was derived off the Bitcoin mainchain.

I think the concern is : does this value sitting on other chains respect Bitcoin's ledger and the answer is in the most probable cases it does.

Convertibility then is the feature by which all of this value sitting on different chains is compounded. Of course if the peg is removed than the value on any of the detached sidechain is cutoff from the ecosystem.

Is that a problem? It is, but not one that sidechain introduce. There exist plenty of off-chain schemes already that are in fact more probable to corrupt the value assigned to them, IMO. Sidechains that are properly implemented will protect the value assigned outside the mainchain on the procol level.

[Adrian-x]

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 think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.

But Keynesian Economists might.

[brg444]

bang on. also explains the long bull market, metaphorically, VC,s will get to a stage like early mining, at some point its better to invest in BTC than it is to try and make earn it.
the idea isn't to disrupt the economy, its to disrupt the financial system used to run the economy.

Bitcoin is a risk distribution virus, more powerful than any biological weapon, it assimilates and leave a working economy in its wake, all we have to do is protect the DNA that makes it work, punting economic energy into Bitcoin is how it grows.  

VCs will never resort to solely buying BTC. This is an asinine proposition which defeats the whole purpose of their existence.

Tim Draper would be surprised to learn this.
http://www.coindesk.com/tim-draper-revealed-silk-road-bitcoin-auction-winner/

Would you like me to list the Bitcoin companies in which Draper is invested? The keyword here is solely.

The Draper example is even more stupid in itself considering he has said these Bitcoins will be used to bootstrap liquidity into Vaurum/Mirror.

You are better than that....

[NewLiberty]

If Side Chains were wholly good, they would need no promotion.
The fact that there are more nuanced advantages and disadvantages for Bitcoin by their existence justifies promotion expense, despite the promoters efforts to deny the disadvantages, that is why the promoters exist.

[Erdogan]

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 think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.

But Keynesian Economists might.

Hehe, we don't count on those guys, they are "out".

[NewLiberty]

bang on. also explains the long bull market, metaphorically, VC,s will get to a stage like early mining, at some point its better to invest in BTC than it is to try and make earn it.
the idea isn't to disrupt the economy, its to disrupt the financial system used to run the economy.

Bitcoin is a risk distribution virus, more powerful than any biological weapon, it assimilates and leave a working economy in its wake, all we have to do is protect the DNA that makes it work, punting economic energy into Bitcoin is how it grows.  

VCs will never resort to solely buying BTC. This is an asinine proposition which defeats the whole purpose of their existence.

Tim Draper would be surprised to learn this.
http://www.coindesk.com/tim-draper-revealed-silk-road-bitcoin-auction-winner/

Would you like me to list the Bitcoin companies in which Draper is invested? The keyword here is solely.

The Draper example is even more stupid in itself considering he has said these Bitcoins will be used to bootstrap liquidity into Vaurum/Mirror.

You are better than that....

Why not simply "define away" the existence of VCs that solely buy BTC by just not including them in your definition of VC...  or that they aren't VC until they also create a Bitcoin company even though they bought BTC before creating such a company?

Its tautological that way, and you can avoid not knowing about the VCs that have just bought BTC and don't have any Bitcoin company planned.
Otherwise a single example invalidates your claim that it "never" happens.

[brg444]

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 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.

The reason you're not hearing much about OT is that Monetas is spending a lot of time working on voting pools, which are a hard problem to solve and also a backend technology.

When exchanges start using voting pools to handle customer deposits, there will be a great many OT users who won't even realize they're using it.

That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains.

Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now.

I'd say you should not worry so much and embrace sidechains. It looks to me like OT is one kind of federated model which will find its place for certain use cases.

[Adrian-x]

You never fail to surprise me with your stupidity.

the conversation was quite pleasant for a while, but the tone just dropped again.  oh well,

its a race to 10,000 pages this thread has been growing faster then the wall observer lets see if we can pack out another 200 pages.

[brg444]

Why not simply "define away" the existence of VCs that solely buy BTC by just not including them in your definition of VC...  or that they aren't VC until they also create a Bitcoin company even though they bought BTC before creating such a company?

Its tautological that way, and you can avoid not knowing about the VCs that have just bought BTC and don't have any Bitcoin company planned.

I know of a lot of VCs that have solely bought BTC and not invested in companies yet. One particularity is rarely do they use money from their investors fund to do so. That money, by venture capitalist definition, is to be used to invest in businesses.

The reason for my comment was Adrian seemingly suggest VCs will stop creating and supporting companies and instead concentrate on the purchase of BTC.

[NewLiberty]

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 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.

The reason you're not hearing much about OT is that Monetas is spending a lot of time working on voting pools, which are a hard problem to solve and also a backend technology.

When exchanges start using voting pools to handle customer deposits, there will be a great many OT users who won't even realize they're using it.

That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains.

Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now.

I'd say you should not worry so much and embrace sidechains. It looks to me like OT is one kind of federated model which will find its place for certain use cases.

I don't think SCs endanger OT.  OT can work just fine with Side Chains as well.

[brg444]

this is, imo, problematic for BTC holders in #2 and #3.  the realization that BTC value units now have the potential to "leak" from what's supposed to be a self contained firewalled off system will destroy Bitcoins Sound Money function.  right now, i could buy gold and throw it in a safe and never access it for the rest of my life and, in the absence of the Bitcoin alternative, be confident that it would retain its value.  in your demonstrated scenarios above, i could NEVER count on that.  therefore, the natural conclusion is that Bitcoin would NOT be Sound Money.

That is true only considering that the the "peg" is broken.

Peter himself has suggested this is not a realistic scenario.

As long as the peg is working then yes you can absolutely forget about your BTC and if, once you come back to them, the network has decided on using a different then you will be able to claim your 1:1 stake as everyone was.

[brg444]

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 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.

The reason you're not hearing much about OT is that Monetas is spending a lot of time working on voting pools, which are a hard problem to solve and also a backend technology.

When exchanges start using voting pools to handle customer deposits, there will be a great many OT users who won't even realize they're using it.

That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains.

Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now.

I'd say you should not worry so much and embrace sidechains. It looks to me like OT is one kind of federated model which will find its place for certain use cases.

I don't think SCs endanger OT.  OT can work just fine with Side Chains as well.

I agree 100%.

Most applications do not necessitate SPVP sidechains level of decentralization. OT are seemingly an interesting federated model which might prove to be superior to other alternatives.

The reason SPVP is proposed is because there are absolutely some (applications/utilities) that necessitate decentralization and reduction of counterparty risk on a level equivalent to BTC.

[Adrian-x]

Why not simply "define away" the existence of VCs that solely buy BTC by just not including them in your definition of VC...  or that they aren't VC until they also create a Bitcoin company even though they bought BTC before creating such a company?

Its tautological that way, and you can avoid not knowing about the VCs that have just bought BTC and don't have any Bitcoin company planned.

I know of a lot of VCs that have solely bought BTC and not invested in companies yet. One particularity is rarely do they use money from their investors fund to do so. That money, by venture capitalist definition, is to be used to invest in businesses.

The reason for my comment was Adrian seemingly suggest VCs will stop creating and supporting companies and instead concentrate on the purchase of BTC.

VC'c could mean Venture Capatalist management Funds and it could also mean Venture Capitalists, I was referring to the later. brg444 a little humilitywould help your communication and the practice of holding 2 contradicting thoughts in your mind at the same time could help find creative solutions to the non existing problems you are so eager to defend.

[brg444]

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.

Peter R has emphasized the potential you suggest is not quite realistic.

There is again a fundamental misunderstanding in your comment. At present, a important amount of value is sitting on exchanges for example and while you would like to argue that these BTCs are on the chain, the point is the value for the user is not. It is detached and in the hands of a counterparty which could easily corrupt it, inflate it, or simply run away with it.

Sidechains does not change the dynamic to enter the economy. Your notion that someone could simply create a sidechain and "siphon" BTC is possible but does NOT grants them a position in the economy per say. Unless they decide to steal their sidechain's users units then they have no control over them. Exchange operators and other controllers of off-chain schemes can access their users funds in the very same way. Sidechains do not introduce that problem

[brg444]

Why not simply "define away" the existence of VCs that solely buy BTC by just not including them in your definition of VC...  or that they aren't VC until they also create a Bitcoin company even though they bought BTC before creating such a company?

Its tautological that way, and you can avoid not knowing about the VCs that have just bought BTC and don't have any Bitcoin company planned.

I know of a lot of VCs that have solely bought BTC and not invested in companies yet. One particularity is rarely do they use money from their investors fund to do so. That money, by venture capitalist definition, is to be used to invest in businesses.

The reason for my comment was Adrian seemingly suggest VCs will stop creating and supporting companies and instead concentrate on the purchase of BTC.

VC'c could mean Venture Capatalist management Funds and it could also mean Venture Capitalists, I was referring to the later. brg444 a little humilitywould help your communication and the practice of holding 2 contradicting thoughts in your mind at the same time could help find creative solutions to the non existing problems you are so eager to defend.

Then what was the point of your comment about VCs?

Do you somehow suggest they are NOT purchasing BTC as part of their personal investment portfolio, right now?

I don't follow the comparison to miners if you are not referring to their management funds. By what scheme do you suggest VCs are currently trying to "earn" BTC and not outright buyingt them?

the non existing problems you are so eager to defend.

  the irony

[justusranvier]

That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains.

Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now.

If I was just interested in promoting OT, I'd jump on the sidechain bandwagon because Monetas could use the opcodes in the same way that Blockstream plans to use them.

If I'm in the business of self-promoting drivebys, why haven't I joined the ranks of people demanding to keep the block size limit in place to force more transactions off the main chain?

Isn't that what I should be doing if your insinuation of my motives is correct?

[brg444]

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.

Is confidence in the entire system not eroded from owners losing their value through off-chain, centralized schemes (gox). Sure the Bitcoin in Gox's case are still "on the blockchain" (I would argue BTC lost to a sidechain are also still on the mainchain, but burned and rendered unusuable) but the trust issue lays on the value lost by users.

[brg444]

That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains.

Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now.

If I was just interested in promoting OT, I'd jump on the sidechain bandwagon because Monetas could use the opcodes in the same way that Blockstream plans to use them.

If I'm in the business of self-promoting drivebys, why haven't I joined the ranks of people demanding to keep the block size limit in place to force more transactions off the main chain?

Isn't that what I should be doing if your insinuation of my motives is correct?

The point is I have seen you challenge Blockstream's developers conflict of interest which I don't find very genuine considering you yourself have entrenched interest.

[Adrian-x]

Is confidence in the entire system not eroded from owners losing their value through off-chain, centralized schemes (gox). Sure the Bitcoin in Gox's case are still "on the blockchain" (I would argue BTC lost to a sidechain are also still on the mainchain, but burned and rendered unusuable) but the trust issue lays on the value lost by users.

its funny but that and the FBI-SR coin auction is what gives me confidence. the benefit to the community is to learn the value of real money and trust, two important skills knowing how to evaluate both. the more complex the relationships the harder it is to do.