Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

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.

Brg444 I don't think you have any skin in this game. I suggests you find someone to lend you a $100K and put your money where your mouth is, buy some Bitcoin it's cheep if you're correct and it's only going up.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity. I don't trade on the biggest exchanges but I can tell you it's going down it's not often I see an effect like this. Your support if you can find credit will holed the price for a minute but it will help restore confidence.

The gross lack of judgment says to me many Bitcoin proponents have sold out and are thinking this is a trigger. Well it's not. They sold out just in time and are now killing Bitcoin. My economic energy has enabled the wrong people the greedy.

[1713471064]

1713471064

[1713471064]

1713471064

[1713471064]

1713471064

[1713471064]

1713471064

[1713471064]

1713471064

[1713471064]

1713471064

[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.

Brg444 I don't think you have any skin in this game. I suggests you find someone to lend you a $100K and put your money where your mouth is, buy some Bitcoin it's cheep if you're correct and it's only going up.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity. I don't trade on the biggest exchanges but I can tell you it's going down it's not often I see an effect like this. Your support if you can find credit will holed the price for a minute but it will help restore confidence.

The gross lack of judgment says to me many Bitcoin proponents have sold out and are thinking this is a trigger. Well it's not. They sold out just in time and are now killing Bitcoin. My economic energy has enabled the wrong people the greedy.

 

where is this coming from?

what would satisfy you? a SS of my wallet ?

[Adrian-x]

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.

Brg444 I don't think you have any skin in this game. I suggests you find someone to lend you a $100K and put your money where your mouth is, buy some Bitcoin it's cheep if you're correct and it's only going up.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity. I don't trade on the biggest exchanges but I can tell you it's going down it's not often I see an effect like this. Your support if you can find credit will holed the price for a minute but it will help restore confidence.

The gross lack of judgment says to me many Bitcoin proponents have sold out and are thinking this is a trigger. Well it's not. They sold out just in time and are now killing Bitcoin. My economic energy has enabled the wrong people the greedy.

 

where is this coming from?

what would satisfy you? a SS of my wallet ?

No just you having some skin in the game. Just make a big bet your attitude will change blabbing along when you think you know everything changes when you have something at stake.

I'm not trying to create a win lose proposition. Bitcoin is win win, my economic energy has been growing this idea, I've put a lot of savings on the blockchain knowing the only exit is price.

This changes everything that value can now be extracted leaving me with worthless private keys. No thanks.

Let's see you turn this around I'm selling are you buying?

[cypherdoc]

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.

what %migration to scBTC would elicit the MC devs to fork in the innovation?

[cypherdoc]

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

not worth the risk given the potential for SC to destroy the MC

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

and yet they're not. but you want to create SC's with altcoins which will enable this on a widespread basis?

[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

not worth the risk given the potential for SC to destroy the MC

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

and yet they're not. but you want to create SC's with altcoins which will enable this on a widespread basis?

Enable this?

Miners decide on whether they merge mine or not. It is not because the model to secure sidechains is merged-mining that subsequently ALL sidechains will be picked up by the miners. They will decide to mine those that are worth their time, exactly like with alts.

[brg444]

No just you having some skin in the game. Just make a big bet your attitude will change blabbing along when you think you know everything changes when you have something at stake.

I'm not trying to create a win lose proposition. Bitcoin is win win, my economic energy has been growing this idea, I've put a lot of savings on the blockchain knowing the only exit is price.

This changes everything that value can now be extracted leaving me with worthless private keys. No thanks.

Let's see you turn this around I'm selling are you buying?

I'm buying every time I have a penny loose my friend.

It is tragic that a gross misunderstanding would have you sell your Bitcoins.

[cypherdoc]

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.

Brg444 I don't think you have any skin in this game. I suggests you find someone to lend you a $100K and put your money where your mouth is, buy some Bitcoin it's cheep if you're correct and it's only going up.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity. I don't trade on the biggest exchanges but I can tell you it's going down it's not often I see an effect like this. Your support if you can find credit will holed the price for a minute but it will help restore confidence.

The gross lack of judgment says to me many Bitcoin proponents have sold out and are thinking this is a trigger. Well it's not. They sold out just in time and are now killing Bitcoin. My economic energy has enabled the wrong people the greedy.

 

where is this coming from?

what would satisfy you? a SS of my wallet ?

No just you having some skin in the game. Just make a big bet your attitude will change blabbing along when you think you know everything changes when you have something at stake.

I'm not trying to create a win lose proposition. Bitcoin is win win, my economic energy has been growing this idea, I've put a lot of savings on the blockchain knowing the only exit is price.

This changes everything that value can now be extracted leaving me with worthless private keys. No thanks.

Let's see you turn this around I'm selling are you buying?

sorry to hear you're selling but i have to agree with you:

[Deadstock]

soo...who is buying gold silver? I simply can't look away from these attractive prices 

[Adrian-x]

No just you having some skin in the game. Just make a big bet your attitude will change blabbing along when you think you know everything changes when you have something at stake.

I'm not trying to create a win lose proposition. Bitcoin is win win, my economic energy has been growing this idea, I've put a lot of savings on the blockchain knowing the only exit is price.

This changes everything that value can now be extracted leaving me with worthless private keys. No thanks.

Let's see you turn this around I'm selling are you buying?

I'm buying every time I have a penny loose my friend.

It is tragic that a gross misunderstanding would have you sell your Bitcoins.

You have pennies at risk my misunderstanding is your good fortune. Enjoy.

[tvbcof]

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

Sidechains do not enter in to the comment.  This is what Gavin proposes for Bitcoin.  To me it guarantees that Bitcoin will at some point be controlled by a small number of high powered organizations (unless the hard-fork is rolled back out by another hard fork or Bitcoin fails for other reasons.)

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." - Albert A. Bartlett

Smart people understand this shortcoming and use it to advantage regularly.

I consider my holding in Bitcoin as a function of 'future value' no different than my holdings in other things.  Thus, I have to mark the future value of Bitcoin down in conjunction with my expectations of it's evolution.  People think who think at all probably think, 'oh, it's 10 years out before it becomes a problem.'  Bitcoin is already 5 years old or so, so 10 years from now isn't that long.  And the technology available to me today vs. 5 years ago is not even close to matching the propositions outlined in Moore's Law.

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

I don't expect that you or almost anyone else would agree.  That's why I inserted 'to me' in the statement.  I have something of an orthogonal mind.

[iCEBREAKER]

Buy the rumor; sell the news? 

[brg444]

...

I agree with all that you have said.

Maybe I need to expand on my thoughts one last time in an effort to have you guys consider where I'm coming from.

I believe that Bitcoin, as is, is the closest form of perfect money we have ever seen.

Its shortcomings, or areas for improvement, in my opinion are as follow :

1. Long confirmation time
2. Privacy (anonymity) option not native as a user-defined option
3. Block size for scaling
4. Possibility that a better mining algorithm exist that could improve decentralization

Aside from the obvious scaling concern, Bitcoin could very well survive as digital gold without seeing any of the improvements I have mentioned. Its fundamentals are THAT strong.

For a long time I envisioned that my previous concerns would be addressed in more centralized type of schemes, or, as some would call it, through off-blockchain transactions.

Now with sidechains, we are provided with the possibility to create these chains that are attached to BTC's mainchain and function in an interoperable way using BTC as their transacting unit, effectively maintaining the ledger.

There, I believe, is our opportunity to create a certain number of sidechains that will work in synergy with the main chain and add considerable value to it.

We do NOT need a BILLION of sidechains. I am in agreement with Adam that it is likely only a relatively small number of them will get the proper developer support and most importantly, miners support. In that regard, I think a lot of people fool themselves into thinking that because the security model proposed in the sidechains paper is merged-mining then all of the sidechains will get this benefit. This is a grave mistake and is exactly why I have been adamant in saying that altcoins booted on top of a sidechain are not, in any way whatsoever, a greater risk to Bitcoin than regular alts are. For this reason, ANY concern that has for a premise the creation of a sidecoin is irrelevant to the discussion as it is NOT enabled by the sidechain proposition.

What we should be discussing and perhaps trying to poke hole in is the use of sidechains as utility features using a unit that is pegged 1:1 with BTC. This, the two-way peg, is the innovation behind the sidechain concept. Everything else has been possible before.

What could these utilities be? Well allow me to return to my list of Bitcoin as money shortcomings :

1. A sidechain allowing for faster transaction times.
2. A sidechain enabling anonymous transactions

My interest in this exercise is Bitcoin as money : store of value, means-of-exchange and unit of account. Traditionally we're looking for these characteristics : scarcity, divisibility, portability, verifiability, recognizability and fungibility. Now, with the proposed sidechains we improve the characteristic of portability (faster transactions) and enable the user-defined additional feature of privacy.

Now cypher here argues that the anonymous sidechain creates a risk for it to potentially to take over as the mainchain. I disagree with that as I see anonymity as a niche market in this world's current settings but I can certainly envision a day where this is no longer true and everyone has a need for 100% private transactions but the day is not now and so that point is moot. Meanwhile the two markets, black and white both can work in synergy and create value for each other.

The same could be said about faster transactions times. At a certain point we might have the technology to make this happen without any security tradeoff but at the moment I believe sidechains is the best decentralized way to go about it.

In this setting, transactions are plentiful in all three chains and miners have an incentive to mine all three of them. The ledger is preserved and there is no dilution or loss of value
 
Having said all of that, what exactly is the "risk created"? If it is that an innovative new sidechain makes Bitcoin obsolete then should we really call that a risk? Is it a risk to create a better form of money? Is Bitcoin a risk? I guess you could say it is but I think all of us here agree that its added value to society is worth the risk.

[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.

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.

You don't like the word conveyance.  OK
BTC don't really "move" either, you like the word "represent".
The point is the same though.  It isn't a peg.

And...that's a good thing for SCs.

I like conveyance better than represent, because the scBTC does more than represent BTC, it wraps the currency in a different block chain with different characteristics.  Like putting it in an envelope for more privacy, or to a fast block chain, or to use BTC as the "backing" for a special purpose currency (like a redemption value in a store issued coupon that is worth more BTC if the SC is spent in that store before the expiration date, and after is worth only the BTC value by redeeming it back to the Bitcoin block chain).

The BTC<->scBTC trades will have to gain value to someone in BOTH directions or they just won't happen.  Someone would have to have a reason to move to a SC.  And then they (or someone) would have to have a reason to move back to BTC.  These may not be the same reasons as illustrated above.

[cbeast]

My contribution to the Side Chain discussion Pegged vs. Proof of Burn and why they are two sides of the same Side Chain coin (pun not intended).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844617.msg9419689#msg9419689

[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.

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.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

[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.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

[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.

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.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.

The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

[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.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.

The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.

[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!

this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. 

otoh, please explain to all of us in detail how SC's, real or scam, can only make the BTC price go up?