Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.

and I explained several times why you are wrong thinking that.

you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it

[1714042439]

1714042439

[1714042439]

1714042439

[1714042439]

1714042439

[1714042439]

1714042439

[cypherdoc]

but scZC is MM'd and direct mined for security alongside the scBTC.  therefore it is more secure than today's altcoins.  sure, the exchange price for scZC might be volatile as are altcoins today but b/c it has the advantage of being MM'd and direct mined as a result of scBTC being attracted to this SC for the same perfect anonymity reasons, it should do better than today's altcoins.

No, the sidecoin is only MM if there is value in it. The comparison to Bitcoin is asinine. Bitcoin had no competition. There was no choice for miners or better use of their resource

we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.

Bitcoin started of at $0.  "there was no incentive to mine them" yet they were. once they were bought and traded, price started to rise. scZC only has to be mined by its dev to get things going.

If it's only mined by its dev than it make it a HUGE security risk. Exactly like any other altcoins. Again, no one wants to store their value on extremely volatile sidecoins that are considerably more risky, less secure and have no distinct feature.

not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?

the scBTC have no every reason to store on scZC b/c of the risk free put.  

there is no risk free put on the scZC

who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.

[cypherdoc]

i just told you severl times thru several examples.  the 2wp breaks the link btwn BTC the currency and its blockchain and allows scZC to take advantage of certain dynamics that Monero can't.

and I explained several times why you are wrong thinking that.

i've answered every non answer you've brought up.

you are seriously confused and everyone here realises it

it's possible but i don't think so.

[brg444]

Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

He is obviously confused himself and his constant moving of the goal post has him lost in multiple interjected erronous arguments

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

He is obviously confused himself and his constant moving of the goal post has him lost in multiple interjected erronous arguments

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

[molecular]

If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  .  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

I'm rolling with that, too. Had the insight a while back that this is an approach I can easily live with. Sneak it in .

I've been wondering what percentage of the "blockchain as tech" proponents actually think that way secretly.

[cypherdoc]

If you've been following the pre-sidechain discussions in this thread about money as a ledger and the inseparability of currency from the Blockchain, you'll recognize the irony in this CoinDesk article about lighter regulations for "non-financial use of blockchain technology":

http://www.coindesk.com/lawsky-non-financial-block-chain-projects-exempt-current-bitlicense/

However untrue it may be, I'm starting to see that the meme "blockchain technology has a bright future but the currency-aspect is dubious" is actually in our benefit.  I'm rolling with it  .  People can accept this premise much easier and thereby recognize the importance of the Network and the Blockchain.  

Of course this meme is a Trojan horse.  Once one has accepted the importance of a decentralized, trustless, and unforgeable ledger, it's a much smaller step to realize that our most important records (and also the one's most tempting to alter) should be stored on that ledger.  These records are money itself. Bitcoin will force the world to re-learn what money is...  

I'm rolling with that, too. Had the insight a while back that this is an approach I can easily live with. Sneak it in .

I've been wondering what percentage of the "blockchain as tech" proponents actually think that way secretly.

i have a question for all those praising Peter (i do too).

how can you praise the idea yet reconcile this with SC's?  in the heart of the paper they say their core assumption is that the BTC units can be separated from the blockchain.  this is wrong.

 

[brg444]

we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.

how are they performing? are they secure? if you remove their attempt at differentiation from BTC with anonymity, faster block transactions or what not do you think they will still get support?

not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?

That has nothing to do with a premine.

Why don't you adresse my question :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.

scBTC already offers anonymity, it doesnt need the shitcoin

[brg444]

how can you praise the idea yet reconcile this with SC's?  in the heart of the paper they say their core assumption is that the BTC units can be separated from the blockchain.  this is wrong.

 

because you don't understand their argument doesn't mean it's wrong.

because clearly, you don't understand it.

[brg444]

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

[cypherdoc]

we have plenty of altcoin examples that are being mined today.  why is it hard to envision scZC being mined?  answer:  it's not.

how are they performing? are they secure? if you remove their attempt at differentiation from BTC with anonymity, faster block transactions or what not do you think they will still get support?

you said they won't be mined. that means zero mining.  now you're changing your position.  any reasonable person can see they will be mined, just to what extent.  b/c it's ZC, it has an excellent chance of being mined actually.

not if the dev doesn't do a premine and just mines like Satoshi did to get it going.  why is this so hard to comprehend?

That has nothing to do with a premine.

Why don't you adresse my question :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

they are storing their scBTC on the ZC sidechain which includes scZC.  both coins are riding on the ZC sidechain benefitting from perfect anonymity.

who said there was?  it's only on the scBTC which is why they will moved to the ZC SC in the first place; to get anonymity.

scBTC already offers anonymity, it doesnt need the shitcoin

but scZC speculators want to buy cheap startup anonymity coins at perhaps $0.006/scZC.

[cypherdoc]

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC.  get it?

[brg444]

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC.  get it?

BUT NO ONE WILL WANT TO USE THIS scZC !!! GET IT!?

It has no distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put. Where is the value proposition? What is the difference with just about any altcoin. Actually it is worst than any altcoin because offers no innovation that BTC users cannot get through scBTC.

God you are dense this is pathetic. I don't know why I'm spending so much energy on your miserable attemps at FUD. You have cleary successed in confusing yourself to the point you don't realise the hole you are in.

[brg444]

but scZC speculators want to buy cheap startup anonymity coins at perhaps $0.006/scZC.

Monero is available today! Cheap startup anonymity coin, probably as much hashing power as your shit scZC and all the upside! Don't miss your chance!

[brg444]

why wouldn't a new investor buy scZC on a fiat exchange?  why wouldn't a miner want to not only mine tx fees for scBTC as well as mine scZC block rewards + scZC tx fees?

don't say there is no one "using" scZC.  Bitcoin's price started out at $0 when no one was "using" it.  look what happened to it.

Why? Because it's essentially a new alt coin. How is the actual zerocoin doing? Any miners bothered merged mining it?

The new investor can either buy the scZC and expose himself to all the risks or buy BTC and use the scBTC zerocoin feature pegged 1:1 with the risk-free put.

Which one would you use?

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

if the scZC is priced at, let's say $0.006/scZC compared to $342/BTC, i would buy the coin with the greater upside (scZC) that has the same anonymity feature as scBTC since the SC has MM for security with actual direct mining from small miners defecting.

He doesn't understand that sidecoin = altcoin.

He can't comprehend why there is no more incentive for miners to merge mine or smaller miners to direct mine sidecoins than regular altcoins.

He doesn't want to admit that the market wants to protect the value of their investment and make it possible to use new features : the essence of sidechains.

Or maybe he does, but he is so disingenuous he will not admit it.

This has been the entire problem with this thread IMHO. The arguments for sidechains (true sidechains with 1:1 pegging) are getting merged with the arguments against altcoins.

Most of the "discussion" against sidechains is focused on saying that SC's are a backdoor method to enable altcoins, which damage the value of the mainchain. This is cypherdoc's argument above in saying that he would buy scZC at $0.006 for the upside potential.

But this is wrong, altcoins already exist today and have no practical effect on Bitcoin. Example: there are tons of "faster" altcoins and they are dying. Example: there are tons of altcoins capable of MM with Bticoin, but most are ignored by miners. In the end network effects will ensure there is only one true ledger, and that ledger is going to be Bitcoin's 21M coins. Sidechains that implement an altcoin aspect, will see that that altcoin will be as successful at today's altcoins.

The beauty of sidechains is they enable new features to be added to the Bitcoin mainchain 21M BTC ecosystem, while not requiring risky hard forks of the mainchain. This will grow the value of that 21M coins.

I have seen no valid arguments against this.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic

And it shows.

You missed my point. It was not that I am not familiar with SC's because I haven't tracked the 100 pages here very closely. It was that I think the 100+ pages have mostly been hysterical noise. I understand your argument 2 posts up, I just disagree completely with it.

instead of making pronouncements, you should get into the details of what i'm saying to prove me wrong.

he is actually spot on and describes in great details why you are wrong.

you think there is a difference between sidecoins and altcoins. there is a gang of people here who have tried to explain to you why there isn't in 100 different ways but still you refuse to acknowledge it. this is called delusion and you suffer from a serious case of it.

[tvbcof]

Cypherdoc, I would like to know your real intentions. Why are you trying to confuse people.

Are you invested in an alt-coin and now your investment is evaporating ?
Are you trolling ?

A big shout out to ~brg444 for doing yeoman's duty here.  Your efforts are definitely provoking some of the vested interests into exposing their hands.

I personally don't completely write off cypherdoc's assertions that he only cares about the health of Bitcoin and see's sidechains as a threat, but it's becoming less and less plausible as his desperate stretches and contortions build.

[cypherdoc]

glad to see all your posts have degraded to this. b/c your answers are BS.

Answer this :

Why would someone want to store their value on a sidecoin that has NO distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put?

BTC holders will want to convert to scBTC which rides on the ZC sidechain which also happens to be producing scZC.  get it?

BUT NO ONE WILL WANT TO USE THIS scZC !!! GET IT!?

It has no distinguishable feature, less security, less liquidity, smaller network effect AND does not offer a risk-free put. Where is the value proposition? What is the difference with just about any altcoin. Actually it is worst than any altcoin because offers no innovation that BTC users cannot get through scBTC.

God you are dense this is pathetic. I don't know why I'm spending so much energy on your miserable attemps at FUD. You have cleary successed in confusing yourself to the point you don't realise the hole you are in.

i'll just recycle the same arguments i gave above calmly.

when you say NO ONE WILL USE IT, that comes from only your perspective as a Bitcoin proponent who can't see past his nose.  you ignore the fact that i keep saying that if the scZC is designed with a fixed supply goal just like Bitcoin, it can and will attract speculators who will buy the same features that Bitcoin has plus anonoymity, but at a much lower early adopter price.  yes, it will up to the ZC sidechain to attract mining.  but b/c anonymity is a desired feature and b/c it offers a chance at getting in on a ground floor price of say $0.006/scZC as an example, attracting miners shouldn't be a problem b/c not only will miners be getting scZC block rewards, they will be getting scBTC and scZC tx fees.  and the scBTC will be protected by the 1:1 peg.

if this scenario not possible solely from a technical standpoint of SC's, then i need to know now, otherwise i believe i'm right.

[cypherdoc]

I personally don't completely write off cypherdoc's assertions that he only cares about the health of Bitcoin

this is exactly where i'm coming from.  everybody here knows i already run my mouth even before this SC issue.  so in that sense, i'm behaving normally.  and b/c i have no conflict of interest, i don't care what ppl think of me.  i'm just trying to protect Bitcoin.

it's brg444 incessant counter posting of my every thought beginning the exact day of the whitepaper that is suspicious.

[Adrian-x]

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

Unless that is the reason.

 

An inferior shitcoin will defeat the superior option of risk-averse 2wp?

Do you realise what you are saying here?

To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, It’s my view that this is in debate when in fact it isn’t.

Some considerations for MM SC:
Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Is it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SC’s then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SC’s?  
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?  
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Is it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners won’t be Bitcoin?  
Is it possible that when Bitcoin’s block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason)  

Now if you answered NO to any of the above you need to provide a rational expiation as to why it is not possible?
If the above came to pass, knowing the majority of a miner’s revenue is generated by a SC, who will have a profit motive to grow the Hashing power on the Bitcoin Blockchain to protect it?
Why would they want to protect it?

Imagine you got most of your revenues from one SC and someone made a new one and taking advantage of an innovation that your ASIC’s  couldn’t leverage (or you don’t like the a rich guy who has a big stake in competing SC). You could take the profit from your SC mining, so sustain your business, and you could 51% attack the Bitcoin network to prevent defectors from leaving your profitable SC you could collude with other pools – no need to kill Bitcoin you could just charge a 5BTC per kb transaction fee to process the transfes. (this doesn’t add value nor is it innovation)


TL;DR I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

[Erdogan]

mainly by breaking the inextricable linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its blockchain, the MC.  it allows all these games we've been discussing for the last few dozens of pages to be played.

So you're saying altcoins are going to take over because it is potentially easier to transfer BTC to sidechains than it is to buy them on exchange?

That's not a very good argument

what i'm saying is you're letting altcoins/sidecoins/SC's into the core engine of the Bitcoin business by allowing them to hitch themselves to the Bitcoin blockchain and siphon BTC currency via the 2wp as well as luring Bitcoin miners to MM.  if the altcoin/sidecoin/SC can offer attractive features like perfect anonymity to scBTC holders, why wouldn't BTC holders migrate to it when they have the risk free put?

the double whammy comes with the scZC with an initial low price, maybe $0.006/scZC.  since investors/speculators understand the importance of anonymity as a desired feature, they will buy these up like crazy b/c if they're right, the entire BTC holding community might have to migrate over to this chain increasing its usage and ultimate value.  if other speculators follow on by buying up scZC at higher prices, this further increases the value of the SC.  miners will leave the Bitcoin MC to take advantage of all these dynamics.

There will not be a mass migration to scBTC, because, the free floating value of scBTC will be less. It is not enough that the sidechain has some better properties, even if all technical properties are as good as or better than bitcoins, bitcoins is far better in liquidity.

Take Argentina peso as an example. It is pegged to a higher value to dollar than what is natural (the market price). If they could choose, everybody in Argentina would convert their pesos to dollar at the peg price. If the pegging authority could offer conversion of all pesos at that rate, all value would disappear from pesos.