Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[hdbuck]

isnt there already "decentralized exchanges" as in OTC channels?
I cant wrap my mind as to how such decentralized exchange would be implemented otherwise.
People keep invoking such concept as the holy grail but i find it hard to imagine how it should work. what am i missing

ps: SCs.. yuck.

[1714990419]

1714990419

[1714990419]

1714990419

[1714990419]

1714990419

[1714990419]

1714990419

[1714990419]

1714990419

[Adrian-x]

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)

I think Bitcoin proponents who are Side Chane enthusiasts will finally understand when a Side Chane takes over with less desirable qualities than Bitcoin provides its proponents today - or not, the argument that Bitcoin was an experiment due to fail anyway will still be valid.


Odalv, your comment made me think of this quote:

“By this means the government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”

He was talking about Fiat inflation. - I think we are set for a revolution in that it is about 1 in 100,000 people cant detect the theft now.

today: It is SC allow inflation in SC tokens (currency) while backing it with and fixing the value of Bitcoin and by this means Blockstream and their future partners may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the Bitcoiners, and not one man in a million will detect the theft. (problem is there arrant that many Bitcoiners)

you just need Fiat money to make this happen, and not a lot either, fractions of that is pumped out in the past QE (more than I have but I am not at risk of a failing Fiat system.)

[cypherdoc]

...

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.

and that would be to ignore what Odalv has said all along.  he envisions billions.  there certainly will be a lot as they are costless to implement.  and why not if you can attract valuable BTC to scBTC while possibly securing MM?

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.

we would hope not.  except with lots of miners losing money at this point, if SC's were implemented tomorrow even with a questionable innovation, speculative miners could be expected to support a speculative SC.

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.

a sidecoin exacerbates the problem as i see it by introducing a block reward on the SC in addition to the tx fees paid.  as Bitcoin's mining reward dwindles, the inequity in payout becomes even more stark in favor of the SC.  we've been through this already, why ignore us?

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

i disagree that these can ever be the only benefits that Bitcoin might ever derive from technological advancements.  better security might be one.   niche uses not dependent on MM are another huge source.  all these have the potential to suck the life out of Bitcoin (decreased tx fees) especially when there exists this theoretical risk free put.

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

you're still ignoring that they could take over the MC especially if the scBTC start to climb in price and we see migration to the SC over time if the innovation appears valid and useful. you've never answered my Q about how and when will the core devs be willing to integrate a new innovation into the MC?  maybe the Blockstream core devs don't want that to happen out of conflict of interest?
 

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.

it is a risk in the sense that if successive innovative SC's are introduced, which is to be expected, then forcing all BTC hodlers to crack open cold wallets to migrate each time this happens would introduce all sorts of risk which i've already identified.

we should be innovating on the MC to preserve the sanctity of the BTC to blockchain inextricable linkage of value.  Bitcoin is hard.  but we need miners to constantly struggle pushing security to it's maximum via hashrate on the MC (they might not like it but that is what Bitcoin needs), we need investors to struggle timing the inevitable bubble ramps and crashes, we need ALL tx's to happen on MC to pay those miners as block rewards decrease, we need devs that are willing to compete in a fair and non conflicted manner to advance Bitcoin from a public service perspective, we need devs who can come to a consensus to develop truly significant innovations on the MC.  there is too much money involved to allow for-profit enterprise to take over the system.  the public confidence depends on a fair, balanced, unconflicted system as Bitcoin is the first and only attempt at establishing a worldwide, people based, sound money standard that is not in the clutches of men.

[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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

you need to dig way deeper than that rocks.  have you been following all the comments since the paper release here in this thread?  read them all and see if you come to the same conclusion.

[Adrian-x]

isnt there already "decentralized exchanges" as in OTC channels?
I cant wrap my mind as to how such decentralized exchange would be implemented otherwise.
People keep invoking such concept as the holy grail but i find it hard to imagine how it should work. what am i missing

ps: SCs.. yuck.

a "decentralized exchanges" can not touch you BTC, you have a deposit account with them, but they cant move your BTC. - no more Goxing - on the downside an exchange can't do the same with your Fiat.

here is an intro as to the proper way to do it without screwing with the protocol.
http://youtu.be/teNzIFu5L70?t=1m

why change something - introduce SC if the proposed benefits are already here: SC come with another side benefit, (feature) and that is the value in BTC transfers to the Side Chain while your bitcoin private keys stay safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtJcUM5-TeA

[Adrian-x]

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is.  

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

[cypherdoc]

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is. 

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

you got your quote mixed up.  that was rocks who said that.

[cypherdoc]

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

[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.

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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

It is economically naive to fail to consider that a feature that adds value in one economic condition, may subtract it in another, and that movement of money may follow this with a lag, sometimes a very significant lag due to practical constraints.
Further naivete would be in imaging that this is not happening all the time, and that this effect is commonly exploited.  "Economists" here are contemplating only static ideal cases, and implementing regulatory changes in spite of these concerns.  Changing the code is changing what ultimately regulates Bitcoin.

With this particular change, it is not so easy to undo it if it turns out to be a mistake.  Many Bitcoin may be destroyed.  People will make mistakes of trust.

There are many new risks with SC.  Lets address them rather than pretend that they don't exist.

[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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

It is economically naive to fail to consider that a feature that adds value in one economic condition, may subtract it in another, and that movement of money may follow this with a lag, sometimes a very significant lag due to practical constraints.
Further naivete would be in imaging that this is not happening all the time, and that this effect is commonly exploited.  "Economists" here are contemplating only static ideal cases, and implementing regulatory changes in spite of these concerns.  Changing the code is changing what ultimately regulates Bitcoin.

With this particular change, it is not so easy to undo it if it turns out to be a mistake.  Many Bitcoin may be destroyed.  People will make mistakes of trust.

There are many new risks with SC.  Lets address them rather than pretend that they don't exist.

yes, it's like the Fed when they print money.  you don't see the inflationary effects at first b/c you aren't the one who first touches the money.  only with time and in retrospect do you realize, oh shit, what just happened to the value of my money?  

i think we're already beginning to see this since the SC whitepaper. i had no idea Adrian-X was selling.  and neither did anyone else.  he's correctly anticipating, along with the market apparently, a decreased equilibrium in the BTC price if SC's get implemented. and yet a failure of Bitcoin has not yet been priced in.  you can argue the merit of this argument but we now have at least an example set of 1.  and we also have explained in a detailed, plausible, yet painfully contentious, and prolonged way how this dynamic might occur.  this doesn't mean, however, that the price can't stabilize from here or even start going back up.  but if Blockstream continues to advance their agenda, i would expect major selloffs at each step of the way which will not be fully balanced by those who hope that SC's don't become a reality.

i actually don't think the Blockstream core devs even realize what SC's will do economically.  they never did an economic study after all.  

[chriswilmer]

My two cents: you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves with the whole sidechains business. It's going to be at least a year or two before we have any idea what the effect of (actually useful) sidechains have on Bitcoin.

[justusranvier]

My two cents: you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves with the whole sidechains business. It's going to be at least a year or two before we have any idea what the effect of (actually useful) sidechains have on Bitcoin.

In the meantime, altcoins are dying even without sidechains, and by the time sidechains launch it might be the case that OT is being used for all the things use cases which has been proposed for sidechains.

[cypherdoc]

My two cents: you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves with the whole sidechains business. It's going to be at least a year or two before we have any idea what the effect of (actually useful) sidechains have on Bitcoin.

i don't care. 

i see SC's as the primary threat to Bitcoin's decentralized egalitarian approach to Sound Money.  i'd rather flush out all the gory details now.

[cypherdoc]

oil?  who the hell needs oil?  we only need the Fed!

[cypherdoc]

i don't care.  

i see SC's as the primary threat to Bitcoin's decentralized egalitarian approach to Sound Money.  i'd rather flush out all the gory details now.

At its peak in S curve adoption 90% of Bitcoin will be centralized, like it or not.  How you chose to use it will be based on your decision.  But the general public will be using Coinbase/Circle/Bitpay wallet for everyday purchases and these purchases will be off chain and protected.  I see these SC in much of the same instance as these centralized wallets that will come about.  

well, i'm a little more idealistic/hopeful than that.  

Bitcoin has given people all around the world a wonderful opportunity.  let's seize it and protect it at the same time.

[Adrian-x]

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is.  

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

you got your quote mixed up.  that was rocks who said that.

the quote is @ 44 minutes http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/ is that not Austin Hill?

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

[cypherdoc]

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is. 

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

you got your quote mixed up.  that was rocks who said that.

the quote is @ 44 minutes http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/ is that not Austin Hill?

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

wrong one.  this is not me:

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

[Adrian-x]

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

thanks, that NewLiberty quote had an impact on my undertaking when looking at Bitcoin as a whole. its great.  

[Adrian-x]

wrong one.  this is not me:

I'll update my post sorry I was on my phone.

[cypherdoc]

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

thanks, that NewLiberty quote had an impact on my undertaking when looking at Bitcoin as a whole. its great.  

it's the truth.