Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

you could be right about anonymity being a niche feature, altho i'd bet you're wrong on this.  the vast majority of Bitcoiners, i believe, want increased privacy.  as far as faster tx's, you are definitely wrong on this.  ask anyone, "would you rather have your tx confirmed in 1 min or 10min?  every single one of them would pick 1 min.

point being, when the block subsidy in MC runs out in 2140 or sooner, the SC will be competing with the MC simply on tx fees but the SC has the added advantage of faster tx's and/or anonymity.  which chain would you rather be on, especially if you were a miner?

I'd bet the picture your are painting of current BTC user does NOT represent the vast majority of future Bitcoin holder. Privacy should absolutely be user-defined in my opinion and the mainstream, right or wrong, has little need or want for anonymity.

As far as faster tx, remember that they come at the cost of lesser network security. I don't believe you can simply provide faster transactions on a POW algorithm without a tradeoff in security because if that were the case then Bitcoin would've had it by now.

you are seriously twisting your argument to support your claim.  who knows the future?  to assume there will never be any innovation that gets added to a SC on top of a MC clone that won't make it more attractive to migrate to is asinine.  that's what SC are for!  and your security argument is a logical fallacy in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that faster tx times will be achieved in the future that doesn't effect network security, point being SC's coupled with that innovation will obsolete Bitcoin.

and the whitepaper even acknowledges this migratory effect.  why won't you?

[cypherdoc]

Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP

why would price do this?

 

People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up

ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down?

No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

wow, listen up everyone!  SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up!  never down!

[NewLiberty]

Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP

why would price do this?

 

People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up

ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down?

No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

Really, you ought to stop.
It is as though you are trying to convince people to hate Side Chains by making inaccurate statements one after another.
1) altscams can and do decrease BTC prices in more ways than one.
2) Consider a scan....If I introduce a SC with a hole in it, that lets me collect all the SC coin and then sell all the BTC connected to them?
There are many possible scams, only a failed one (that is an ineffective scam) might increase scarcity.

[brg444]

That isn't what begs the question means.

touché!

You may indeed welcome it.  But others may have many reasons not to do so.
It raises the risk to the minority.
It is similar to the problem of democratic voting.  One wins, one loses.  If you do not agree with the majority, you lose.
So "we" in this case is a subset of "we" that may not include cypherdoc or any other particular person.
Do you see why this is not a compelling argument?

No. I don't, because any evolution in the technology of money that serves the greater good should win.
"You may indeed welcome Bitcoin. But others may have many reasons not to do so. It raises the risk to the (cash) minority."

Your opinion is noted.  We disagree.  I think it is a closer analogy to any of those you've used.
The bitcoin is contained within the SC similar to how it is contained within a physical bitcoin.  The physical bitcoin offers features that are not available on the main chain.  Transactions with physical bitcoin do not affect the Bitcoin block chain.  Huh, asinine... ok

Is the physical bitcoin mined and profitable to the miners? Is the digital Bitcoin redeemable from the physical bitcoin at the algorithm level? Yes, asinine.

Analogy aside, consider here that you are postulating that the SC features may bleed out some of the contained bitcoin to be used for TX fees and claiming that this potential feature which has never been implemented is going to happen, and so no one should have any worries about this?

Not certain what you are insinuating here?

Right...  There is no peg.  You claiming that there is one does not make it so.  The SC is a container for bitcoin with different characteristics.  This is not the same thing as a peg.
(a peg is not necessarily a good thing in any case)

Are you entirely certain you know what a Side Chain is?  Your explanation of them makes them sound really horrible.

There is no peg   But there absolutely is and should be a peg. The SC is a cointainer for bitcoin yes, but the innovation the two-way peg.

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.

Maybe you mean there should not necessarily be a peg? Sure, but then it becomes just another altcoin.

[brg444]

Really, you ought to stop.
It is as though you are trying to convince people to hate Side Chains by making inaccurate statements one after another.
1) altscams can and do decrease BTC prices in more ways than one.
2) Consider a scan....If I introduce a SC with a hole in it, that lets me collect all the SC coin and then sell all the BTC connected to them?
There are many possible scams, only a failed one (that is an ineffective scam) might increase scarcity.

If you will allow me I will take back what I said. Foolishly I did not consider the scammer selling off the acquired BTC... I wouldn't 

[brg444]

like i said above, user anonymity should be a widely sought after feature.  and your security argument is a logical fallacy in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that faster tx times will be achieved in the future that doesn't effect network security, point being SC's coupled with that innovation will obsolete Bitcoin

If it is so then it will be implemented in the mainchain

you should.  but how inconvenient, insecure, along with identity compromise from having to move all your BTC to a SC every few years.

As inconvenient, insecure as it was to move your fiat to BTC.

Every few years? the scenario I'm proposing would need to be, in my mind, a paradigm shift of the order of fiat money/Bitcoin. I wouldn't bet on such innovation pace because as I have said previously, Bitcoin is close to as good as it gets as is.

if a SC employs sidecoins/altcoins, the risk for Bitcoin is even greater than that of a simple SC alone just paying fees.  miners who defect would now be getting paid not only tx fees but also block rewards on a SC that everybody has migrated to b/c of the innovation.

That's not what I'm saying. My point is the sidecoin scenario is no different than any altcoin ie. the sidechains does not enable them in any significant way.

[RAJSALLIN]

So what is the conclusion here? Bitcoin is dead and will never see a new ath? A side chain that is superior will emerge? I really don't understand this (haven't spent much time reading up on it) but wouldn't side chains mean bitcoin would have to survive? People would be buying btc and sending them to different side chains, taking btc off the market and price should go up not down because of this? What am I missing?

[Wekkel]

So what is the conclusion here? Bitcoin is dead and will never see a new ath? A side chain that is superior will emerge? I really don't understand this (haven't spent much time reading up on it) but wouldn't side chains mean bitcoin would have to survive? People would be buying btc and sending them to different side chains, taking btc off the market and price should go up not down because of this? What am I missing?

Nothing. Don't read it if it confuses you. Just see what's going to happen and act on it. For now, it's just a lot of discussion.

[brg444]

you are seriously twisting your argument to support your claim.  who knows the future?  to assume there will never be any innovation that gets added to a SC on top of a MC clone that won't make it more attractive to migrate to is asinine.  that's what SC are for!  and your security argument is a logical fallacy in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that faster tx times will be achieved in the future that doesn't effect network security, point being SC's coupled with that innovation will obsolete Bitcoin.

and the whitepaper even acknowledges this migratory effect.  why won't you?

I never said never.

So it appears we agree on most of this. Indeed, this is in part what SC are for.

So worst case scenario is new and improved Bitcoin creates a migration from the original Bitcoin blockchain.

What exactly should I be concerned about here?

[brg444]

People would be buying btc and sending them to different side chains, taking btc off the market and price should go up not down because of this? What am I missing?

This is how I see it but apparently there are greater risks this is not how this will unfold... I'm not certain anymore what the concerns are since they have mutated considerably since their first incarnation

[NewLiberty]

Maybe you mean there should not necessarily be a peg? Sure, but then it becomes just another altcoin.

There simply is no peg.
The SC contains bitcoin.
This is not a peg, it is a conveyance.
These are different things, and you ought not confuse people by equating them.  It runs counter to your goals.

[brg444]

Maybe you mean there should not necessarily be a peg? Sure, but then it becomes just another altcoin.

There simply is no peg.
The SC contains bitcoin.
This is not a peg, it is a conveyance.
These are different things, and you ought not confuse people by equating them.  It runs counter to your goals.

Not true.

The unit used in the SC is technically not the BTC.

The BTC is not moving around the sidechain, the scBTC unit it represents is.

[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.

You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.

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

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.

and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

[brg444]

and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

how can you say that with such certainty.

[NewLiberty]

I don't begrudge Cypherdoc not going into detail on dismembering these, because they aren't all that substantial as critic defenses go.  I don't know if it was sincere claim that these "debunk" all concerns for all people reading this or if that is just baiting.

Mistake 1 : Sidechains can protect the value through merged mining.
If at some point in the future, there is a particular SC that consumes the bulk of bitcoins in circulation, there is a non-zero risk to Bitcoin that there will be insufficient bitcoin transactions to support bitcoin mining in the later days.  It will have ended Bitcoin (albeit presumably for something better).  People are not always right, that's how we got to where we are with pervasive central banking

The bolded is what I cannot comprehend.

To suggest such a thing would happen is essentially to suggest that a sidechain would be created that carries all of Bitcoin features and more. So essentially, what you are speculating is that a sidechain could be created that is so innovative it removes the need for the Bitcoin blockchain.

But it begs the question : what features could be so compelling?

Anonymity? My opinion is this should be user-defined?
Faster transactions? This comes at the cost of network security

If such a chain emerges that offers these features in a user-defined manner without any tradeoff, then why should we not welcome it with open arms?

There are thousands of reasons one might not welcome this.
One may not be able to trade out of one for the other.
There could be a different scBTC that one might prefer.

I am with you in that I agree that there are good financial innovations.
Do you also understand that there are dangerously bad ones too?
Do you also understand that very often people will choose these dangerously bad ones over the good ones, and that sometimes they do not become so dangerously bad until enough people welcome them with open arms?

Perhaps this is the fundamental point of disagreement?
There are so many different things in the SC bucket that anyone who thinks that no caution is needed is not thinking very hard.

It is akin to saying "we have invented derivatives, yeah baby".  
It is a fintech innovation. Arguably a very good one, but people have different opinions on that.  It has also created risks that were not managed.
scBTC is similar in this way in that it necessarily increases the complexity risks systemically.
It may be worth while.  This will depend on the people and how the technologies are implemented and used, don't you think?

[cypherdoc]

like i said above, user anonymity should be a widely sought after feature.  and your security argument is a logical fallacy in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that faster tx times will be achieved in the future that doesn't effect network security, point being SC's coupled with that innovation will obsolete Bitcoin

If it is so then it will be implemented in the mainchain

why?  you already said consensus is impossible.  what migration % of BTC to scBTC will force the implementation?  give me a %.  and at what % would it be too late?

you should.  but how inconvenient, insecure, along with identity compromise from having to move all your BTC to a SC every few years.

As inconvenient, insecure as it was to move your fiat to BTC.

way more difficult. with fiat at least one has some guarantee and recourse.  digging out cold storage wallets to transfer to the SC is inconvenient, risky, and identity revealing.  how many times do i have to say this before it registers with you?

Every few years? the scenario I'm proposing would need to be, in my mind, a paradigm shift of the order of fiat money/Bitcoin. I wouldn't bet on such innovation pace because as I have said previously, Bitcoin is close to as good as it gets as is.

sigh.  then why go thru all the risk and trouble if SC's aren't going to significantly push Bitcoin forward?

if a SC employs sidecoins/altcoins, the risk for Bitcoin is even greater than that of a simple SC alone just paying fees.  miners who defect would now be getting paid not only tx fees but also block rewards on a SC that everybody has migrated to b/c of the innovation.

That's not what I'm saying. My point is the sidecoin scenario is no different than any altcoin ie. the sidechains does not enable them in any significant way.

  it's totally different b/c the MM helps bootstrap any SC, with or w/o altcoin.

[brg444]

why?  you already said consensus is impossible.  what migration % of BTC to scBTC will force the implementation?  give me a %.  and at what % would it be too late?

The consensus required for a total exodus to a sidechain is the same as a hard fork. Moreover, such an implementation will not necessarily require a hard fork.

sigh.  then why go thru all the risk and trouble if SC's aren't going to significantly push Bitcoin forward?

They can push Bitcoin forward by enabling features that are not natively available through sidechains that work in synergy with the main one

it's totally different b/c the MM helps bootstrap any SC, with or w/o altcoin.

Any altcoin is able, at this very moment, to be MM with BTC

[Adrian-x]

and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

how can you say that with such certainty.

Why mine a coin if it has no reward. What makes this certain is the belief that miners are motivated to spend real industrial energy for profit.

The only counter argument is miners will MM because it costs no energy.

[brg444]

way more difficult. with fiat at least one has some guarantee and recourse.  digging out cold storage wallets to transfer to the SC is inconvenient, risky, and identity revealing.  how many times do i have to say this before it registers with you?

And this is exactly why it will be more convenient for the community to agree to fork the main chain with a feature that has been proven successful on a sidechain than incite a mass exodus.

[NewLiberty]

Any altcoin is able, at this very moment, to be MM with BTC

Any?
Like LTC?