Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

I used the word "value" intentionally, rather than the word "price" to be meaning both 1) and 2) inclusively.
Price, Utility, Efficacy...  "virtue"

Thanks I agree with you're statement btw. (Maybe I'm conflicted on the value thing)

I guess in my mind what gives Bitcoin it's value is the incentive structure, I'm concerned that if there is an existential risk to those incentives then it's a threat to the value that incentive structure creates.

But that's the limit of my understanding maybe we are due to learn and repeat a fiew mistakes this time around.

[1714909434]

1714909434

[1714909434]

1714909434

[Erdogan]

oil?  who the hell needs oil?

Lots of people needs to sell, anyway. The times of production cost of 4 dollars are gone. Now you have to also calculate with social cost, the cost to keep folks just happy enough not to topple the masters. To stem the arab spring flood. Easily 80 dollars. They have to continue selling, even on lower prices. Turbulence ahead.

[marcus_of_augustus]

If SC suck as much as SC-discussions then we've got nothing to fear from them.

[Odalv]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

faster tx times.

I think it is not possible.
Global MM SC + faster tx times => is not viable SC => it cost much more resources (disk space) than Bitcoin
but it is possible to use a lot of LOCAL SC (with small market cap. distributed over globe) for fast local transaction  cafe, dinner ...

[Odalv]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

[cypherdoc]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

it's not the same.  you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.  yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

[Odalv]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

it's not the same.  you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.  

Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp.
If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges.

I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity).

yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

Using different 2wp hacking can be harder  b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC)
This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

[Odalv]

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

shhh, you are spoiling it.

[oblivi]

oil?  who the hell needs oil?

Jesus thats scary. it reminds me of other graph unfortunately..

[tvbcof]

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

I wouldn't put it past some of these guys.

In trying to imagine a way to solve some of the moving stake issues I dreampt up and idea which would provide sidechains without sidechains by shuffling secret keys.  Sort of like stealth addresses in spirit but amplified exponentially.  In essence it would be a big till with all kinds of different fractional chunks of BTC shuffling around to those who need 'change'.  Such a thing could potentially really fuck up the day of those trying to track value flows in part because there is no correlation between the sender and receiver other then they happen to be members of the same system.

Obviously the secret keys would be locked in various ways and if the lock is broken the backing vanishes (back into pure Bitcoinland.)

[brg444]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO

[Adrian-x]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

I think the risk is proven in theory, you may not have understood it, but that doesn't negate it.

The ideas aren't new either, the only new tech Blockstream have introduced is a proposal for a protocol change that will allow BTC the asset to be separated from the value stored on the blockchain.

If you feel comfortable with the existing solutions why introduce new risks?

[Adrian-x]

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

No one is contesting this, this is innovation.

[cypherdoc]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO

except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?

[brg444]

except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?

Possible I guess, but as stated yesterday I don't see the use case or why someone would want to put their coins on such a chain

[cypherdoc]

except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?

Possible I guess, but as stated yesterday I don't see the use case or why someone would want to put their coins on such a chain

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 

[brg444]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

[cypherdoc]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.