Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[markj113]

Bitcoin collapsing, Gold on the up?

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

[1524134571]

1524134571

[1524134571]

1524134571

[1524134571]

1524134571

[cypherdoc]

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

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

[brg444]

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

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

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

[cypherdoc]

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

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

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

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

[Melbustus]

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

I don't interpret it that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tvbcof]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brg444]

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

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

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

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

[brg444]

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

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

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

[tvbcof]

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

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

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

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

[cypherdoc]

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

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

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

[brg444]

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

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

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

You are being really disingenous again.

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

[cypherdoc]

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

[smooth]

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is.

BTC can't literally be "transferred," only locked.

What you are talking about is an altcoin that is backed by BTC and is likely to have lower volatility relative to BTC than an altcoin that doesn't have this backing. (Interestingly though, this could in theory mean higher volatility relative to fiat, though in practice that would not be the case with most current alts.)

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf

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

Hard coded does not mean the code can't be changed. It is the same as with any altcoin. If the developers decide to change the code, and the community accepts it (without forking) then it is changed.

[cypherdoc]

You are being really disingenous again.

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

and you're just being a shill again trying to discredit anyone who is asking good questions.

what does Satoshi have to do with what i would believe to be an expected disclaimer warning to moving one's BTC to a SC?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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

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

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

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

It seems like if this were a concern it would become general practice to have the locked bitcoins be set to automatically unlock after a certain period of time, barring input from the sidechain.

In any case, I don't think this warrants special concern considering the scBTC can potentially be hacked away from the holder, meaning that the BTC can be hacked away as well. The difference between some BTC going to a hacker/scammer and being lost forever is not great. I'd probably prefer lost forever. That way at least everyone else's coins would be worth more. It'd just be a gift from suckers investing in unstable sidechain schemes to the rest of the bitcoin holders. Same as Counterparty's burning of bitcoins for XCP, except with Counterparty it was known that there was no way to get the coins back in the first place.

[brg444]

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech.

presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not

[brg444]

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is.

BTC can't literally be "transferred," only locked.

What you are talking about is an altcoin that is backed by BTC and is likely to have lower volatility relative to BTC than an altcoin that doesn't have this backing. (Interestingly though, this could in theory mean higher volatility relative to fiat, though in practice that would not be the case with most current alts.)

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf

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

Hard coded does not mean the code can't be changed. It is the same as with any altcoin. If the developers decide to change the code, and the community accepts it (without forking) then it is changed.

I have read Konrad's paper. My understanding is that he suggests the price of the BTC locked on the chain would essentially gravitate towards BTC's and most probably at a certain market discount considering cost, risk and uncertainty.

[cypherdoc]

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech.

presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not

i do understand the tech.  it's you who do not understand the economics. 

it's perfectly reasonable to expect the price to differ in certain circumstances even in the presence of arbitrage.

[brg444]

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech.

presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not

i do understand the tech.  it's you who do not understand the economics. 

it's perfectly reasonable to expect the price to differ in certain circumstances even in the presence of arbitrage.

well then if you do understand this I will say yes, of course, the correlation between market exchange rate and technical conversion rate will be considered in my review of sidechains. I fail to see the point of that question though considering the obvious answer.

[smooth]

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is.

BTC can't literally be "transferred," only locked.

What you are talking about is an altcoin that is backed by BTC and is likely to have lower volatility relative to BTC than an altcoin that doesn't have this backing. (Interestingly though, this could in theory mean higher volatility relative to fiat, though in practice that would not be the case with most current alts.)

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf

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

Hard coded does not mean the code can't be changed. It is the same as with any altcoin. If the developers decide to change the code, and the community accepts it (without forking) then it is changed.

I have read Konrad's paper. My understanding is that he suggests the price of the BTC locked on the chain would essentially gravitate towards BTC's and most probably at a certain market discount considering cost, risk and uncertainty.

Could be a discount or a premium depending on market supply and demand factors. Long term, yes you would expect a discount given the weaker security.