Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

all you goldbugs will be happy to know that i now cry every night:

[Adrian-x]

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.  

if you have a small percentage lets say greater than 0.00001% of the blockchain today enlarge it by 2 orders of magnitude in value and you'll probably be one of those central entities protecting your investment.

its only those who sell out that worry.   

[Odalv]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

[tvbcof]

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?

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.

The fact that you guys are most comfortable thinking of Bitcoin a some sort of a for-profit biz which 'competition' and that sort of thing speaks volumes about why you are having such trouble with the concept of sidechains being simply another user of the Bitcoin solution.  This is especially droll since in doing so, sidechains is providing a great service to Bitcoin (by making it not need to destroy itself) as well as the universe of private individuals who really would benefit by options to get away from the corp/gov control of their monetary exchange mechanisms.

[cypherdoc]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

b/c trusting me requires first that you know me.  your trust then is based on my past actions which you can assess.  only then do you allow me to set up a certificate server.  much like WOT where ppl sign off on each other credibility using their private keys but only after assessment and identity has been established.  you trust me to set up a server and install federated software that won't steal your keys.  these servers reside in centralized datacenters that you've paid with your IRL identity.  these servers won't ever be totally independent b/c they need to be maintained by someone with a real identity.

so increased centralization meaning less trust and lower value.

[Adrian-x]

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.  

I dough I'll have any impact, more over the bigger impact is the accumulation flow has switched, it is now in reverse, I'm not picking up cheep coins anymore, as I dont see them as cheep at the moment.

In my little investment brain - , note I dont have a good track record of investing bitcoins - selling a huge stake for gold at golds top, but being true to my understanding the primary reason i felt confident with bitcoin in the first place, isn't reflected in the majority of vocal bitcoiners opinions.

the real trigger is all this regulation, i feel it's holding back illicit uses for bitcoin, and there will be a net sell-off through the first anonymous outlet, most likely enabled through a SC's (while the risk SC provide will take time to manifest we may still see growth spurts in Bitcoin,)

[justusranvier]

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.

So much FUD and misdirection in this post.

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

[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?

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

give them your input.  influence the process.  at least changes they're proposing will be on the MC and not risk destruction by a SC.

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.

of course we disagree on this.

The fact that you guys are most comfortable thinking of Bitcoin a some sort of a for-profit biz which 'competition' and that sort of thing speaks volumes about why you are having such trouble with the concept of sidechains being simply another user of the Bitcoin solution.  This is especially droll since in doing so, sidechains is providing a great service to Bitcoin (by making it not need to destroy itself) as well as the universe of private individuals who really would benefit by options to get away from the corp/gov control of their monetary exchange mechanisms.

yeah right.  nice distortion. i gave a simple analogy that works pretty well. 

what you should focus on is the excellent, yet contentious, discussion we've had.

[Odalv]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

b/c trusting me requires first that you know me.  your trust then is based on my past actions which you can assess.  only then do you allow me to set up a certificate server.  much like WOT where ppl sign off on each other credibility using their private keys but only after assessment and identity has been established.  you trust me to set up a server and install federated software that won't steal your keys.  these servers reside in centralized datacenters that you've paid with your IRL identity.  these servers won't ever be totally independent b/c they need to be maintained by someone with a real identity.

so increased centralization meaning less trust and lower value.

This is not exactly what you have to do (setup federated server). You only have to exchange  BTC : cypherCertificate(paper) if we met personally.

Can you prove you are not doing this ? (running cypherSC)
Can you prove there is not chinese exchange doing this ?

so if you do not stop your cypherSC then BTC will drop to $0

[cypherdoc]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

b/c trusting me requires first that you know me.  your trust then is based on my past actions which you can assess.  only then do you allow me to set up a certificate server.  much like WOT where ppl sign off on each other credibility using their private keys but only after assessment and identity has been established.  you trust me to set up a server and install federated software that won't steal your keys.  these servers reside in centralized datacenters that you've paid with your IRL identity.  these servers won't ever be totally independent b/c they need to be maintained by someone with a real identity.

so increased centralization meaning less trust and lower value.

This is not exactly what you have to do (setup federated server). You only have to exchange  BTC : cypherCertificate(paper) if we met personally.

Can you prove you are not doing this ? (running cypherSC)
Can you prove there is not chinese exchange doing this ?

so if you do not stop your cypherSC then BTC will drop to $0

first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

[solex]

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Bolded to nail the exact situation.

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

There is simply no sensible argument that the transaction growth rate should be permanently arrested and frozen. Transaction volumes should be allowed to grow at a rate near to that of improvements in computing technology (available to consumers).

Fortunately, this now seems to be the view of the majority, and also fortunate that consensus does not require unanimity, otherwise absolutely nothing would ever get done.

[NewLiberty]

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.

So much FUD and misdirection in this post.

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

The "We need the 1MB limit because TOR" folks were fairly clear on their problems causes and ways to deal with it.
(Well, they didn't really address ways to deal with it, which IMHO would be network compression in the first instance)
http://keepbitcoinfree.org/
Peter Todd, et al.

Network compression would resolve many bandwidth issues for miners, though the Max BlockSize "transaction quota" would measure after decompression, so the limit can be higher without becoming problematic for bandwidth.  (Compression can also be assisting storage issues in the same way).

More discussion of it and other proposals here:
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

[Odalv]

first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Bolded to nail the exact situation.

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

There is simply no sensible argument that the transaction growth rate should be permanently arrested and frozen. Transaction volumes should be allowed to grow at a rate near to that of improvements in computing technology (available to consumers).

Fortunately, this now seems to be the view of the majority, and also fortunate that consensus does not require unanimity, otherwise absolutely nothing would ever get done.

i have to admit that i am in fact now leaning in this direction thanks to JR.

i think Gavin can get this done right if he can get the cooperation of the "Blockstream" devs.

[tvbcof]

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.

So much FUD and misdirection in this post.

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

Pffft!  WTF do you think Bitcoin is supposed to run on when the inflation (block reward) is used up?

There is nothing 'radical' and 'experimantal' about transaction fees.  They were part of the design.  You, my friend, are engaging in the FUD here.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

I just saw Gavin say in the same AMA summary that TOR was the answer for security (highly dubious to me, but anyway...) while he proposed increasing the block rate. He forgot to mention that the 1MB block size falls just under what seems to be supportable by TOR at the moment.

He forgot to mention that his proposal is exponential.  As I read Gavin's article here, I almost think he is saying "Remeber that CFR thing?  They got me.  Run for the hills fellow Bitcoiners"  It's that absurd to me.

Andresen posited that the 50% annual growth rate he suggested would enable the distributed network to facilitate as many as 400 million transactions per day if implemented now. After 12 years, the bitcoin network’s estimated transaction capacity would reach 56 billion transactions per day, according to Andresen’s initial calculations.

 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'

[cypherdoc]

first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

simply comb this forum and reddit and search for "decentralization".  you'll find your answer. 

I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

lol, wat?

[Wekkel]

 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'

Please spell it out for us laymen  

[cypherdoc]

 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'

Please spell it out for us laymen  

his socialist old brain is affecting his thought patterns.

[Odalv]

first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

simply comb this forum and reddit and search for "decentralization".  you'll find your answer. 

I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

lol, wat?

lol, I'm joking it is not you running worthless SC (cypherSC).
Did you realize you managed to found  how to destroy bitcoin ?  
1. Create SC with worthless paper coupons. (2-way-peg 1:1 ... coupons : BTC )
2. People will exchange BTC for worthless paper coupons.
3. Then they realize coupons are worthless and this will drive price of BTC to $0

[Adrian-x]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

I think we should frame this more appropriately as SC need to prove themselves not the other way around.
first you need to define: How is Bitcoin's value derived, what makes it valuable?

I think value in your analogy above needs a single definition.

lets say I exchange 1BTC for 1 Certificate lets make it a 1:1 peg

the stock certificate, if it becomes more valuable can be thought of as 1.05BTC in value, (it is possible that the Stock can have a market cap that is greater than Bitcoin, and will keep growing)  
Can you explain how Bitcoins gains in value (as you  have defined value above), given i can only exchange at the 1:1 peg.

How is the value of bitcoin, as it is today, enriched? (knowing the price will be set by some other market force that will absorb all the bitcoins)