Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

Odalv. Out  of  curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?

I only own BTC. I do not have any ShitCoins and I do not plan to hold any.
SC is not ShitCoin. Sidechain is technology how to build services on top of bitcoin protocol.

network {TCP/IP, Novel, ... }
services {mail, http, ftp, dns, ...}

network=MC {Bitcoin, Litecoin, ...}
services=SC {ExchangeSC{MergerSC}, FastWalletSC, MixerSC, ...}

I want to scale Bitcoin to the level -> Bitcoin is used everywhere.
 - keep what bitcoin is (store of value, and value highway -> you can transfer any amount of value thru bitcon-blockchain)
 - OTOH I understand how to add new functionality into it. (better security, privacy, transaction speed, small block-chain - I WANT to keep my copy of main-blockchain where I store my value)


Edit:
Federated peg is good enough for me.
I was only trying to explain you what SC is.

[brg444]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

[brg444]

Yes  but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation.

except no one is using the sidecoin

[cypherdoc]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

[brg444]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

[cypherdoc]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 

[brg444]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 

 

where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.

[cypherdoc]

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 

 

where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

[brg444]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain. Users & miners have no use for the sidecoin as the scBTC is safer, more risk-averse (it has the "risk-free" put as you put it)

[cypherdoc]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progress.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoin.  

[brg444]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

[cypherdoc]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

[cypherdoc]

Goldbugs!  take joy in the fact that i weep in my sleep; everynight now since covering    (not really)

[brg444]

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

!!!

yes it is possible.

but address this question : is this desirable for the user? why would I use a sidechain that issues sidecoin if I can use a sidechain with the exact same feature that works only with the 1:1 peg. who would use the "sidecoin" when he has the option of the risk free put of the scBTC

[Odalv]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

Why would you transfer "sidecoin" when they have $0 value ?  You cannot transfer value using invaluable tokens.  It is like a want buy gold and you give me  gold + your garbage. How this garbage can add value to gold ?

[cypherdoc]

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

!!!

yes it is possible.

but address this question : is this desirable for the user? why would I use a sidechain that issues sidecoin if I can use a sidechain with the exact same feature that works only with the 1:1 peg. who would use the "sidecoin" when he has the option of the risk free put of the scBTC

as a user and a miner myself, who is losing money mining btw, i would use this SC for 2 reasons; faster tx times for my scBTC thru the peg  and because it's protected by the risk free put AND i would mine the SC either thru MM or directly b/c of the added revenue of sidecoin block rewards and the associated tx fees.

this is called greed in action.

edit:  AND as a speculative bet on the sidecoin appreciation.

[cypherdoc]

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

Why would you transfer "sidecoin" when they have $0 value ?  You cannot transfer value using invaluable tokens.  It is like a want buy gold and you give me  gold + your garbage. How this garbage can add value to gold ?

b/c there will always be some idiots speculating miners and investors who WILL value it. just look at altcoin valuations.  they're small but they're there and can be sold for fiat.  it would also be possible for the sidecoin to actually take off in value which would really be a huge bonus.

[21coin]

gold is at lowest level since 2011
its trading at price of march 2010
and still no one know how much it can drop

[cypherdoc]

gold is at lowest level since 2011
its trading at price of march 2010
and still no one know how much it can drop

i know (how much it can drop)

[Adrian-x]

We can't have democracy without choice.  I have one legit chain to point my hardware at.  I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin.  There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use.  As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks.  If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.

What about this SC.
1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC.
2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block  and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC
3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM

And if it works, you've just made my point about how you can suck value out of Bitcoin with games by severing the link between the currency and MC

The link can even be severed by MM SC and 51% hashing attack on Bitcoin. The insensitive to mine Bitcoin for profit is no longer preventing this as the profit comes from mining the SC.