Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out

Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

[1714051170]

1714051170

[1714051170]

1714051170

[1714051170]

1714051170

[1714051170]

1714051170

[1714051170]

1714051170

[cypherdoc]

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out

Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.

[cypherdoc]

No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.

Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.

Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 

Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain.

I get what you are saying but Smooth says you can't arbitrage between SCbtc and BTC because if SCbtc is superior, then no one will own BTC.

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.

[cbeast]

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out

Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.

They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.

What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

[cypherdoc]

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out

Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.

They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid.  so in that sense, we've made some progress.  but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin.  

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.

What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.

[cbeast]

miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.

There's the rub. They need to create some magic that independently converts coins back and forth. BTC must remain legacy for this scheme to work and must be encoded into the protocol. Of course anything could happen, but preserving BTC legacy cold storage must be ensured. It may become cumbersome and slow. Perhaps they will change their protocol to deny Bitcoin transactions except for conversion and it takes a month, but all Bitcoins must be accounted for in the end.

[notme]

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out

Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.

They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid.  so in that sense, we've made some progress.  but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin.  

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.

What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.

I really doubt anything will come along that is considered "better" for everyone.  Anonymity, for example, is well below scarcity, security, and historical record on my list of priorities.  But the thing with SC as opposed to altcoins is that bitcoin the currency stays the same.  It is only bitcoin the blockchain that is in danger of being replaced.  And even if it is replaced, bitcoin the blockchain will still be mined heavily at least until the subsidy dries up because new coins can be moved to whatever chain is successful.

SC also provides a way forward scalablilty wise that doesn't require a VERY controversial hard fork.

In the end, any opposition is irrelevant.  This is a soft fork change, which means any single miner can choose to adopt it and remain compatible with the existing infrastructure.  Other miners won't add the new transactions since they are "nonstandard", but they will validate blocks containing them.  If use increases to the point that they are missing out on fees, you bet your ass they will jump on board.

[cypherdoc]

I have spent some time reading the Reddit AMA and I'm sorry to say but it was disappointing to witness the childish stubbordness in your numerous comment in the face of considerably knowledgeable adversity. Your back must be aching from all this heavy lifting cause there were some serious moving of the goal post. You were corrected many time for different false assumption that you keep spreading around on this forum which I consider very concerning misinformation.

in that thread, here's my scores:

upvotes=50
downvotes=11
0 points=7

seems, on balance, you're the one with the distorted perspective.

[BldSwtTrs]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to some sidecoin, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

[notme]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

[cbeast]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.

[BldSwtTrs]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.

Why BTC is the primary liquidity for SC? What prevent people to buy the SC the open market with fiat?

Either the fiat price is higher than the peg and then BTC is an option in the money which will be used, either it's lower and then people will don't use BTC to get SC but buy them with fiat.

[cypherdoc]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

i'm confused about this.  i've heard different stories from, "it's not possible to lose your scBTC to a SC failure b/c you can always access the peg back to BTC"  versus "you'll lose everything".   then this from LukeJr:

[–]Freemanix 2 points 7 hours ago

What if the child chain is defunct/abandoned? How can I return my funds back onto parent chain?

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

[–]luke-jr [-6] 3 points 7 hours ago

Mining it yourself? There's potentially ways to do a unilateral transfer, but that's something beyond simple sidechains for now.

[cbeast]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.

Why BTC is the primary liquidity for SC? What prevent people to buy the SC on the open market with fiat?

It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

[cbeast]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

i'm confused about this.  i've heard different stories from, "it's not possible to lose your scBTC to a SC failure b/c you can always access the peg back to BTC"  versus "you'll lose everything".   then this from LukeJr:

[–]Freemanix 2 points 7 hours ago

What if the child chain is defunct/abandoned? How can I return my funds back onto parent chain?

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

[–]luke-jr [-6] 3 points 7 hours ago

Mining it yourself? There's potentially ways to do a unilateral transfer, but that's something beyond simple sidechains for now.

So basically, SC is just an idea with nothing fleshed out.

[cypherdoc]

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.

Why BTC is the primary liquidity for SC? What prevent people to buy the SC on the open market with fiat?

It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

earlier i was trying to conceive a scenario where the mining fees required to transit the peg might become exorbitant thus negating the perfect arbitrage.  what would happen if either BTC or scBTC is perceived to be in crisis and failing?  anyone trying to get out from the failing unit might have to pay thru the nose to do so as the miner would be taking signif fee risk with a unit heading to zero.

[justusranvier]

i'm confused about this.  i've heard different stories from, "it's not possible to lose your scBTC to a SC failure b/c you can always access the peg back to BTC"  versus "you'll lose everything".   then this from LukeJr:

[–]Freemanix 2 points 7 hours ago

What if the child chain is defunct/abandoned? How can I return my funds back onto parent chain?

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

[–]luke-jr [-6] 3 points 7 hours ago

Mining it yourself? There's potentially ways to do a unilateral transfer, but that's something beyond simple sidechains for now.

wtf?

[neilol-real]

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

^^This is how I understand it - the owner of the scBTC is always in control of the original BTC, it's just locked. A malfunction/default/shutdown of the SC doesn't effect your ability to unlock the original BTC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following from a technical standpoint:

A SC only references that the original BTC is continually "locked" in the correct way. As soon as it is unlocked the SC asset ceases to exist as well (regardless if the SC network is actively functioning)

[yraskk]

Main reason that i prefer bitcoin, but i like in the same case gold because in gold there isn't same speculation that we have in bitcoin 

[cbeast]

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.

It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

^^This is how I understand it - the owner of the scBTC is always in control of the original BTC, it's just locked. A malfunction/default/shutdown of the SC doesn't effect your ability to unlock the original BTC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following from a technical standpoint:

A SC only references that the original BTC is continually "locked" in the correct way. As soon as it is unlocked the SC asset ceases to exist as well (regardless if the SC network is actively functioning)

So in this case SC stands for Scam Coin.