Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Kupsi]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure. 

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

[cypherdoc]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure. 

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin. 

[Odalv]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure. 

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin. 

"newness, less security, chance of failure, etc." is compensated with "increased utility"  so yes on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in is fiat terms and forever until SC crash.

[Kupsi]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure. 

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin. 

Yes, the price will be the same in fiat terms as long as coins can flow freely between the chains.

[cypherdoc]

forever until SC crash.

you just proved my point.  that single fact means a scBTC will forever be worth less than a BTC.  

thru arbitrage, the scBTC will drag down the BTC price to where it "appears" they are equal in fiat terms.

[justusranvier]

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin.

Before the arb bots can work, first there has to be people who hold sidechain units who are willing to sell them for fiat at a loss instead of converting them back to Bitcoin.

I'm not sure what the mechanism for this would be.

[Adrian-x]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.

The first app is a mixing service for stolen coins it is likely there will be arb opportunities and likely Bitcoin price will drop.

[Odalv]

forever until SC crash.

you just proved my point.  that single fact means a scBTC will forever be worth less than a BTC.  

thru arbitrage, the scBTC will drag down the BTC price to where it "appears" they are equal in fiat terms.

You are right in term. BitstampBTC is draging down real BTC price.

[cypherdoc]

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin.

Before the arb bots can work, first there has to be people who hold sidechain units who are willing to sell them for fiat at a loss instead of converting them back to Bitcoin.

I'm not sure what the mechanism for this would be.

there may be some in scBTC who need to get out fast for IRL reasons and would rather take a slight loss selling on an exchange rather than going back thru the peg with it's contest/confirmation delays.  ppl do all sorts of crazy shit.

several proponents here have already agreed scBTC would be priced less than BTC, at least initially.

[Kupsi]

forever until SC crash.

you just proved my point.  that single fact means a scBTC will forever be worth less than a BTC.  

thru arbitrage, the scBTC will drag down the BTC price to where it "appears" they are equal in fiat terms.

You are right in term. BitstampBTC is draging down real BTC price.

It's dragging up. You need BitstampBTC, KrakenBTC etc to use an exchange. BitstampBTC have increased utility.

[justusranvier]

there may be some in scBTC who need to get out fast for IRL reasons and would rather take a slight loss selling on an exchange rather than going back thru the peg with it's contest/confirmation delays.  ppl do all sorts of crazy shit.

several proponents here have already agreed scBTC would be priced less than BTC, at least initially.

I wonder if somebody can try to legally force this outcome, for example in the case of central banks issuing their currencies as sidechains.

[Adrian-x]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.

its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth.

initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325.  bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat.

Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?

look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE.  that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less.  that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots.

Yes SC is LESS SECURE, but SC allow you trade bitcoins or SC will add diferent feature  e.g. fast confirmation. The key is   1 BTC on MC = 1 BTC on SC

Dream on. If it's a competing token there is an opportunity cost let's say laundering dirty coins or anonymity for the illegal activities. Then there is the SC needs an economic incentive to survive that erosion will degrade the 1:1 peg.

[inca]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.

its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth.

initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325.  bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat.

Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?

look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE.  that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less.  that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots.

Yes SC is LESS SECURE, but SC allow you trade bitcoins or SC will add diferent feature  e.g. fast confirmation. The key is   1 BTC on MC = 1 BTC on SC

Dream on. If it's a competing token there is an opportunity cost let's say laundering dirty coins or anonymity for the illegal activities. Then there is the SC needs an economic incentive to survive that erosion will degrade the 1:1 peg.

Bitcoin already does this? Unregulated exchanges already exist, say into alt coins or BTC-E. No rush out the door to alt coins so far.

[cypherdoc]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure.  

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin.  

"newness, less security, chance of failure, etc." is compensated with "increased utility"  so yes on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in is fiat terms and forever until SC crash.

another way to address your point is that a "theoretical" will never trump a "known".

we know MM is less secure than direct mining.  we don't know that a new untested "innovation" will exactly counter weigh the value of less security.

[tvbcof]

in fact, is this what the market is pricing in now since the announcement?

The announcement that the Bitcoin Foundation is going to try to make Bitcoin experience exponential block size growth as a hard fork?  That announcement?

[Adrian-x]

forever until SC crash.

you just proved my point.  that single fact means a scBTC will forever be worth less than a BTC.  

thru arbitrage, the scBTC will drag down the BTC price to where it "appears" they are equal in fiat terms.

The point is there is not a 100% guarantee on a 1:1 risk relationship could inverse if after Bitcoins mining reward is lower than the SC.

[cypherdoc]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.

its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth.

initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325.  bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat.

Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?

look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE.  that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less.  that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots.

Yes SC is LESS SECURE, but SC allow you trade bitcoins or SC will add diferent feature  e.g. fast confirmation. The key is   1 BTC on MC = 1 BTC on SC

Dream on. If it's a competing token there is an opportunity cost let's say laundering dirty coins or anonymity for the illegal activities. Then there is the SC needs an economic incentive to survive that erosion will degrade the 1:1 peg.

Bitcoin already does this? Unregulated exchanges already exist, say into alt coins or BTC-E. No rush out the door to alt coins so far.

that's b/c altcoins don't have the luxury of being MM'd by the Bitcoin miners.

the only chance SC's have to sell their whole concept is if Austin Hill can introduce a market distortion by convincing miners to MM.  you know, the "something for nothing" concept.

[Adrian-x]

simple theory question for all SC proponents.  so simple in fact what am i missing?

we have 13M BTC @ around $325.  SC comes along and lets say 3M BTC --> scBTC (just for illustration).  we know that the price of scBTC has to be lower given MM, newness, being unproven, risk of failure, etc.  let's say price starts off @ $100.

why don't arb bots circle back around and drive BTC price down to say $250-270 or whatever the equilibrium is btwn BTC and scBTC, which we know is lower?  multiply this by 1000 SC's.

Btc price would go up first, because lower monetary base in the proven old bitcoin block chain (13m -> 10m)

no, the BTC have just been transformed to lower value units, scBTC, b/c they have been moved to a less secure, unproven ledger.  this will drag down the BTC price to an equilibrium price btwn the two.

In order for the arb to work, the coins have to move back to the bitcoin blockchain.

its a 2 way peg, so both BTC and scBTC can move freely back and forth.

initially, scBTC are priced lower at $100 with BTC at $325.  bots sell BTC for fiat, circle around and buys scBTC on the exchange, push scBTC back thru the peg to BTC, rinse and repeat.

Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?

look, we know that the SC is LESS SECURE.  that means any scBTC riding on that less secure ledger is worth less.  that has to be priced in and will feedback to BTC via the arb bots.

Yes SC is LESS SECURE, but SC allow you trade bitcoins or SC will add diferent feature  e.g. fast confirmation. The key is   1 BTC on MC = 1 BTC on SC

Dream on. If it's a competing token there is an opportunity cost let's say laundering dirty coins or anonymity for the illegal activities. Then there is the SC needs an economic incentive to survive that erosion will degrade the 1:1 peg.

Bitcoin already does this? Unregulated exchanges already exist, say into alt coins or BTC-E. No rush out the door to alt coins so far.

Bitcoin is a self contained economic system. It's all priced in in Bitcoin. My point being there will be a motive to short the SC token.

[Odalv]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure.  

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin.  

"newness, less security, chance of failure, etc." is compensated with "increased utility"  so yes on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in is fiat terms and forever until SC crash.

another way to address your point is that a "theoretical" will never trump a "known".

we know MM is less secure than direct mining.  we don't know that a new untested "innovation" will counter weigh the value of less security.

MM is only one type of SC (it is good only for world wide use).  It is possible to use "oracle" for mining or ...  group of people at an island can use private SC with fixed difficulity (b/c they know each others) ... they can use their virtual currency, and this currency can be exchanged 1:1 bitcoin. They do not have to pay transaction fees if they agree and use only 1 confirmation (every 2 min).

[cypherdoc]

let me put it in simple terms w/o numbers.

you're taking a chunk of coin off a very secure ledger and moving them over to a less secure ledger.  it's too be expected those coins moved will be worth less b/c they are now less secure.  

b/c of arbitrage, you can expect the moved coin to drag down the price of the not moved coin to a lower equilibrium.

But why will you move the coins in the first place???

for experimentation, speculation, stupidity, pump and dump, who knows?  we know it will occur.

But why will you sell them for a lower price instead of transfering them back to BTC?

you don't have to do anything.  the arb bots will take care of it for you.

What??? Someone have to sell the cheap coins?

do you seriously think that when a SC is first established on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in fiat terms?.  it can't be b/c of newness, less security, chance of failure, etc.  with time, as it proves itself, the arb bots will equilibrate the price but at a lower level b/c of the always present risk of failure of the SC.  the SC is not Bitcoin.  

"newness, less security, chance of failure, etc." is compensated with "increased utility"  so yes on Day 1, 1 scBTC = 1 BTC in is fiat terms and forever until SC crash.

another way to address your point is that a "theoretical" will never trump a "known".

we know MM is less secure than direct mining.  we don't know that a new untested "innovation" will counter weigh the value of less security.

MM is only one type of SC (it is good only for world wide use).  It is possible to use "oracle" for mining or ...  group of people at an island can use private SC with fixed difficulity (b/c they know each others) ... they can use their virtual currency, and this currency can be exchanged 1:1 bitcoin. They do not have to pay transaction fees if they agree and use only 1 confirmation (every 2 min).

any SC that employs security any less than MM is even less secure.  therefore, its scBTC will be valued even less.  the feedback thru arb bots will be to drag down BTC even more.