Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features.

I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is.

[brg444]

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

/argument

[Adrian-x]

No emerging SC market will have higher liquidity than the BTC markets. If there is little friction to converting BTC <> SC, then the preferable way will be to convert and sell on the BTCUSD markets, and this can only be done so many times. And of course, converting BTC > SC would serve to make Bitcoin more scarce.

are you so sure?
A SC with the transaction volume of visa would be way more valuable than Bitcoin today.

Lets also entertain the idea that the Bitcoin block reward has diminished to 1.5BTC per block and the high volume tx fees happen on a SC, mining efforts will go where the money is, which chain would be more secure?

The higher liquidity of the SC would make Bitcoin irrelevant.

Why I see this as the ultimate outcome is precisely because of the peg. Every failed attempt to superseded Bitcoins liquidity  results in no risk or loss in Bitcoin, but when one is successful it sucks the value right out of Bitcoin.

The real threat is for every 1 person who believes in a fixed money supply there are 10,000 who think the money supply should have a mild inflation. They are the ones on the fiat demand side of the SC and bitcoiners are the ones arbing untill the other chain is the more valuable.

So what I see happening (and I'm hoping someone will give me a rational answer that proves this understanding false - excluding the ass holes who pm me calling me stupid and my understanding BS) is; an inflationary SC could come along - all those central bankers who say we like Bitcoin the blockchain just not the currency, have a 10,000 to 1 advantage when it comes to shifting value.

In effect SC are the enabling technology to use the blockchain to back other assets, that's all fine as long as those assets never become more valuable than Bitcoin. But why create them if you are not wanting them to be more valuable than Bitcoin. What happens if the SC assets become more valuable than Bitcoin the 1:1 peg becomes irrelevant, and no one goes back into Bitcoin.

The net effect is one has used the Bitcoin blockchain to create inflation.

[cypherdoc]

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features.

I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is.

the burden of proof is on you and the proponents of this change to show as close to a shadow of a doubt that what you propose is an improvement to the system and adds value.  i could equally say it may destroy the system and i have given plenty of reasons why it think it could.

if you want to call me twisted then i could equally call you a naive 24 yo kid.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?

Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

... maybe cypherdoc is spreading FUD so he can buy more BTC lower ... who knows?

or maybe my explanations simply explain why the market is dropping?

... half-kidding around of course.

[brg444]

but 1BTC on MC =! 1 scBTC on SC in fiat terms. and that is the result of less security being on a different blockchain/ledger.

the equilibrium fiat price will be lower.

since you have such a hard on for the man Konrad Graf here is a quote from his paper :

The particular SBS must then offer added value sufficient to more than offset these negative factors from the   point   of view of users.

Let us the use then one of your favorite use case :

The 1:1 pegged Anonymous sidechain.

Let's assume now that such a sidechain is developed and after numerous reviews is vetted to be secure by some important industry members and other devs/coders. Remember it is all open-source and obviously long considerations and ajustements will be necessary before we obtain the correct product.

Assuming we do, the question everyone will then have to consider is : is the added value of properly implemented and securely designed anonymity built on top of Bitcoin valuable enough to offset the POSSIBLE (but not guaranteed) issues of securing the sidechain and ensuring proper implementation of the peg.

[brg444]

the burden of proof is on you and the proponents of this change to show as close to a shadow of a doubt that what you propose is an improvement to the system and adds value.  i could equally say it may destroy the system and i have given plenty of reasons why it think it could.

if you want to call me twisted then i could equally call you a naive 24 yo kid.

In reality, "plenty" of your reasons have been dismissed as disingenuous, farfetched and overall FUD.

Here is my proposition that sidechains are an improvement to the system and add value :

I think we all agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and actually pretty close to being perfect as is. As I have mentionned above, its only shortcomings are in its transportive properties : confirmation times and inability to provide private transactions natively. This leads me to believe these two aspects are likely the only ones that who will lead to the creation of utility sidechains that are used as subsets of Bitcoin-money. In all honesty, is there anything more we need from Bitcoin, as a mean of exchange, than faster confirmation time and a privacy option? I don't think so.

Thousands of other sidechains will be created for different purposes but none will be competing with Bitcoin for its position as crypto-money. Some might try, but will realise they will be better off applying their competing idea to an actual altcoin.

Back to my two utility sidechains : these will never take over Bitcoin as they are effectively serving only a certain application or subset of money. Considering these two applications are using a BTC-peg as their transacting unit they are, barring some technicalities, a part of the Bitcoin network and closely tied to the native bitcoin unit, so much in fact that their 1:1 value will always gravitate toward each others and this correlation will become narrower as arbitrage comes into effect and time allows the technology to mature.

[Adrian-x]

Well, the SCs would have reduced purchasing power. If they want their purchasing power back, they have to convert back. And like I said before, if it is easy enough to convert back, it sure beats dealing with some new and illiquid scamcoin exchanges.

no, you're missing the time element.

initially, when a SC is first established, trading prices in fiat for scBTC will be lower b/c they are riding on a less secure sidechain..  we can expect this b/c of newness, less security from MM, possible failure, unproven innovation.  as time goes on, and as arb bots can be confident that the SC is relatively stable and they won't lose any scBTC that they buy in arbing from a SC failure, they will enter the market to buy up scBTC (price rises) while at the same time selling BTC (price drops) until they create a new equilibrium price for both which will closely match but result in a lower price for BTC.  multiply this by a 1000x SC's.

it's kinda like the one's closest to the Fed when it first release QE into the fiat system and it's value is highest until its inflationary effects spread throughout the system. only this is in reverse.

That is simply not true. No one will sell you scBTC for less than BTC. He will offer feature/utility on higher price than actually BTC has.  If you buy then I'll make money. If you do not buy then I'll withdraw to BTC.

Why is it not true? Lets say I have 750K BTC I found in an abandoned server over at MtGox. I realize I can't sell it without attracting attention so I buy into a SC token and sell it at a discount for fiat, speculators see the arb opportunity and buy the SC and convert to BTC. There will be a net down pressure on BTC price.

[brg444]

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

the ever insightful so "appeal to the market" argument

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin is a self contained financial system, meaning that its bitcoin are inextricably linked to its blockchain.  they give each other mutual value.  they only interact with the fiat system in terms of the price at the edges at exchanges or in p2p tx's.

anything that breaks this linkage potentially kills Bitcoin.

SC's break this linkage as it moves these units onto a different blockchain with a different security model and different properties.

[brg444]

Increased utility has to make up for less security if someone is willing to use the SC. The price will be the same with a two way peg.

So obvious yet seemingly so hard to understand

[Adrian-x]

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?

I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

[Adrian-x]

Initially we can't expect shit IMO, because the volume will be low, and that's assuming some credible exchange lists SCs. The amount that is arbed until the price gets close shouldn't be too high. I'm certain that if a credible exchange took it up and it actually had significant volume while being substantially below peg rate, despite any doubts of people with newly converted to SCs, the pressure up would be far higher than the pressure down.

Why a thousand SCs? Are people really going to flow to so many, or do you expect them to do it in series as one gets deserted after the other?

there will be thousands b/c it's just software.  no real work involved.

Yes, BUT some are world wide and some are local.

Closed systems may benefit but global ones will kill Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

Increased utility has to make up for less security if someone is willing to use the SC. The price will be the same with a two way peg.

So obvious yet seemingly so hard to understand

how do you know a brand new will be effective even if it is vetted by devs?  only with use, time, and multiple hacking attempts will you know definitively.  otoh, you know for a fact that a MM rate of say 50% that of the Bitcoin network will cause a decrease in security for the SC.  the market will price that in even though you won't.

so naive.

[brg444]

but that won't be proven right out of the box.  it will take time, experimentation, and speculation on the SC before the market will "trust" the SC, if ever at all.  in the meantime, expect the true value of 1 scBTC < 1 BTC.

this is another thing you don't understand, the 1:1 sidechain "market" doesn't have to prove itself, and in fact it is very likely there is no such speculation that you are referencing.

the likeliest candidates to sidechains are UTILITY chains on a 1:1 peg issuing no assets. they are to be used "in and out" or with only a fraction of the user's BTC trusted to it.

it seems very probable to me these sidechains can be proven valuable and secure "out of the box". assuming the sidechain concept (two-way peg, merged mining, etc.)has been implemented, tested and vetted for some time. From there on, candidate sidechain essentially leverages this implementation and present a code that discloses the exact behaviour of the chain which is then reviewed extensively by the community before an "official launch". Additionaly, we also have to consider that the SC could also be leveraging existing technologies or concepts that have been confirmed to work successfuly in a different environment.

[brg444]

how do you know a brand new will be effective even if it is vetted by devs?  only with use, time, and multiple hacking attempts will you know definitively.  otoh, you know for a fact that a MM rate of say 50% that of the Bitcoin network will cause a decrease in security for the SC.  the market will price that in even though you won't.

so naive.

read above for the first part of your question.

as for MM. I expect the MAJORITY of miners to support an utility sidechain putting forth a significant feature that should attract considerable use and therefore profit for them.

[brg444]

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.

 

so your argument relies on ppl doing all sort of crazy shit but you expect me to prove things without the shadow of a doubt

you can't be serious 

this is a terrible, terrible answer and in fact there is no reasonable scenario for such a thing to happen. the only one I can envision where people would be selling their scBTC at a fiat loss instead of returning to the BTC mainchain is if a failure in the SC implementation doesn't allow it i.e. extremely unlikely and would be an exception that does not define the rule

[tvbcof]

Something is making the guy soil himself multiple times per day.  ...

That's insulting.  ...

No!  Really???

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is a self contained financial system, meaning that its bitcoin are inextricably linked to its blockchain.  they give each other mutual value. 

What if all bitcoins were destroyed but one? Would it have less value?

they only interact with the fiat system in terms of the price at the edges at exchanges or in p2p tx's.

You can think of SCs as exchanges because they are in fact different currencies.

anything that breaks this linkage potentially kills Bitcoin.

Don't more exchanges actually increase liquidity?

SC's break this linkage as it moves these units onto a different blockchain with a different security model and different properties.

How is that any different than selling them for fiat like is happening now? Bitcoin will have to earn confidence, and that will just take time. If a better altcoin comes along, then so be it, but SCs will be designed to trade risk for additional functionality. If they become altcoins, then they will suffer the same fate as their 1000 predecessors.

[brg444]

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.

remember a week ago when you proposed that your anonymous sidechain would be so attractive it would effectively siphon all the BTC out of the mainchain 

now you are not so certain about "innovations" because they don't fit your argument ?