Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.

The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.

The bitcoins are always 'locked in' or paralysed as you put it when transferred to a sidechain. But the peg can be whatever the sidechain wants it to be. It can be fixed or it can float. If it floats then the chain is still backed to a degree by bitcoins, but that backing floats depending upon the value of the side chain coin relative to bitcoin.

No it must be fixed. Else it would be an oxymoron. A floating peg? Absurd.

[1714131506]

1714131506

[1714131506]

1714131506

[1714131506]

1714131506

[1714131506]

1714131506

[brg444]

Who knows what your motivations are.

My motivation is preventing others who might give too much merit to your "track record" from getting fooled by your delusions.

Considering most, if not all of your concerns have been debunked or dismissed as irrelevant to the existence of sidechains I think most here are curious about YOUR motivation to spread FUD.

[brg444]

I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.

The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.

The bitcoins are always 'locked in' or paralysed as you put it when transferred to a sidechain. But the peg can be whatever the sidechain wants it to be. It can be fixed or it can float. If it floats then the chain is still backed to a degree by bitcoins, but that backing floats depending upon the value of the side chain coin relative to bitcoin.

No it must be fixed. Else it would be an oxymoron. A floating peg? Absurd.

A floating peg is only applicable to coins booted on top of a sidechain (read: altcoin)

Contrarily to what people will have you believe, this is NOT the main use case

[Erdogan]

I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.

The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.

Troubling how after so many pages of arguments on sidechains you can still utter such nonsense

YES the peg is possible. YES there is a full reserve. OF COURSE the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist.

Correct.  I think its worth clarifying that the peg is algorithmic, because its seems from the thread that some people may not understand that.  You, personally, can ask the network automatically to swap unlimited quantities of BTC on the sidechain for BTC on the main bitcoin chain.

Ok, assuing full reserve. Since there is a peg, the value is not allowed to differ, but still it is two different coins that by themselves would have different value in the market. The result is binary, either the sidecoin takes over (if the value is higher) or it disappears into oblivion (if the value is lower).

[cypherdoc]

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.

You're even more delusional than I thought..

Spamming your thread? I suggested we stop talking about sidechains in this thread a couple of pages ago. Remember your response ?

Your track record doesn't enable you to spew blatant FUD based on illogic and strech of the mind scenarios.

I suggest your put away your tinfoil hat for a moment and present a sensible argument against sidecoins that is not premised with the creation of an altcoin. Until then, your "track record" has taken quite a hit in credibility in the last few days.

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me argue  against updates. It's the severing of the link between the currency unit and the Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

[cypherdoc]

Who knows what your motivations are.

My motivation is preventing others who might give too much merit to your "track record" from getting fooled by your delusions.

Considering most, if not all of your concerns have been debunked or dismissed as irrelevant to the existence of sidechains I think most here are curious about YOUR motivation to spread FUD.

And you just  saying that doesn't make it true though keep trying

[cypherdoc]

Consulting contracts building SC's. For gvts et al. Maybe starting an sidecoin of their own.

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about 

And you can guarantee human behavior in perpetuity? 

[brg444]

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me site against updates. It's the supposing of the link between the currency unit and is Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

On the contrary, I have listened patiently to ALL of your arguments, carefully considered them and debunked most of them as disingenuous or not entirely dependent on the existence of sidechains to exist.

You will indeed be right everytime because everytime your argument faces rebuttal you move the goal post.

So not your final hail mary is : "changing the source code is risky". Did I get this right?

Otherwise, I, again, challenge you to come up with a significant risk scenario that relies on the creration of 1:1 BTC pegged sidechains. Because that is the one true innovation within sidechains. Every other threat you have previously suggested existed before with altcoins.

[tvbcof]

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is.  ...

The risk of inserting exponential transaction growth as Gavin wants to try to sneak in as a hard fork is, to me, greater than the risk of increasing the 21 million currency base figure.

Adding a feature as a soft fork to support sidechains is, from a technical structural standpoint, not necessarily a very risky thing.  If it is implemented in a reasonably manner I'll definitely prefer it as the mainline Bitcoin codebase.

In some respects I actually would like to see sidechains implemented exercising a federated paradigm (instead of or in addition to a soft-fork) because development of such a solution has potential to mitigate against other forms of superior resource based attacks.  And thus make them less likely to be attempted.

[cypherdoc]

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me site against updates. It's the supposing of the link between the currency unit and is Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

On the contrary, I have listened patiently to ALL of your arguments, carefully considered them and debunked most of them as disingenuous or not entirely dependent on the existence of sidechains to exist.

You will indeed be right everytime because everytime your argument faces rebuttal you move the goal post.

So not your final hail mary is : "changing the source code is risky". Did I get this right?

Otherwise, I, again, challenge you to come up with a significant risk scenario that relies on the creration of 1:1 BTC pegged sidechains. Because that is the one true innovation within sidechains. Every other threat you have previously suggested existed before with altcoins.

See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 

[Odalv]

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

I'm trying to explain you what SC is.

btw:

a) You can change bitcoin protocol by hard-fork
b) or one of SC capabilities is "upgrade bitcoin to new version."

1. create SC what is same as MC + has support for SC's (Bitcoin 2.0)
2. test SC using Federated peg
3. test SC using MM
4. When MM > 60 %  then you can switch to new version.

=> this sequence replaces hard-fork => more testing is done before hard-fork.

[brg444]

See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 

No they don't. I have proved why it is so repeatedly. You are the one not listening.

Adrians long term economic assumption depends on the creation of an altcoin that is better than sidechains. Sidechains does not enable that risk. It existed ever since the first altcoin was created.

[brg444]

The risk of inserting exponential transaction growth as Gavin wants to try to sneak in as a hard fork is, to me, greater than the risk of increasing the 21 million currency base figure.

 

but it (sidechains) does not do that

and I disagree. the moment the 21,000,001 coin appears I'm selling all of my BTC.

[inca]

Yeah it should be crystal clear that ANYONE holding btc would be very very very unhappy if the 21,000,000 cap were lifted either directly or indirectly.

It seems clear that with a fixed peg the 21 million limit of btc is not altered in anyway. If anything with the likelihood of side chains messing up it will probably lead to more lost coins.

[cypherdoc]

Yeah it should be crystal clear that ANYONE holding btc would be very very very unhappy if the 21,000,000 cap were lifted either directly or indirectly.

It seems clear that with a fixed peg the 21 million limit of btc is not altered in anyway. If anything with the likelihood of side chains messing up it will probably lead to more lost coins.

which won't necessarily lead to an increase in BTC price.

cbeast gave me a hypothetical of losing all BTC to a SC leaving just 1 BTC.  the implication being that, no problem, we'll all just divide up that 1 BTC and off we go again on our merry way.  i think that is naive.  first of all, it ignores all the owners of those, what would be the 13,455,849 BTC lost, getting wiped out.  those ppl include guys like me who are Bitcoin's most ardent supporters who would turn against any further trust in cryptocurrencies and set back the project by 100 yrs i'd guess.  so no, continual loss of BTC on SC's will be damaging, not helpful to our cause.

[cypherdoc]

See, you don't listen. Imo, all of my prior arguments still stand, even my base case of 1:1 with a simple SC. I think Adrians long term economic assumption is valid that miners will migrate to SC for fees plus the innovation. 

No they don't. I have proved why it is so repeatedly. You are the one not listening.

Adrians long term economic assumption depends on the creation of an altcoin that is better than sidechains. Sidechains does not enable that risk. It existed ever since the first altcoin was created.

that was not his argument.  a simple SC with an innovation should be able to defeat the MC w/o the innovation once block rewards disappear.  why?  the risk free put and everyone taking advantage of the innovation to transact.

[Odalv]

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.

[Adrian-x]

The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit

Let's be clear here, this is not the issue, he isn't threatening to mess with the quantity just the value.

I'm concerned you find comfort in this statement.

It's irrelevant how many bitcoins there are. There could be 1 or 1 billion. What is pertinent is the percentage one has of the pie ( the blockchain) and that the value in the pie is the real world investment of energy.

The value is not the unit of measure but the wealth invested in the pie.

You will always get your BTC not the value.

[cypherdoc]

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable

=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.

but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.

and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

[brg444]

The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit

Let's be clear here, this is not the issue, he isn't threatening to mess with the quantity just the value.

I'm concerned you find comfort in this statement.

It's irrelevant how many bitcoins there are. There could be 1 or 1 billion. What is pertinent is the percentage one has of the pie ( the blockchain) and that the value in the pie is the real world investment of energy.

The value is not the unit of measure but the wealth invested in the pie.

You will always get your BTC not the value.

I'm concerned that you would believe this interesting but irrelevant piece of information serves as a counter argument in our debate about sidechains.

How exactly does sidechains affect the ledger?