Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

brg444 is like the "shadow defender" i used to employ back when i coached my son's basketball team years ago (we won 2 straight league championships, btw  )

when we went up against a team with a particularly prolific scorer, i would assign my best defender to shadow this guy, while the rest of the team played zone.  i told him "deny him the ball.  do whatever it takes.  i want you to front him, face him at all times, run thru all picks, push him, shove him, and don't even let him touch the ball.  if you do, it'll be 4 laps for you!" 

the last part is an exaggeration but you know what i mean.  i wonder who assigned brg444 to me...

[Adrian-x]

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement.  i've talked about this for years here.  how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.   

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up. 
 

[rocks]

so i ask, if there are billions of SC's in action processing tx fees, where will all the badly needed tx fees come to support Bitcoin in the long run when the blockchain rewards are gone?

The BTC block reward will be more than enough to protect the network for another 20-30 years.

If after that time most transaction fees shift to MM'ed sidecoins to the extent that there are not enough fees on the main chain to support the main chain then one of 2 things will happen, either: 1) Adjustments will be made to shift MM fees from sidecoins to the main chain (after all sidecoins need this too since their protection is based on MM'ing with the main chain) or 2) some side chain will become the main chain since essentially the main chain was abandoned. Note: this wouldn't hurt BTC since at most 21M BTC would transfer over the 1:1 peg.

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I only see bitcoin as Sound Money, it is the entire reason I support the project. If the concept is broken in the slightest I will abandon ship.

Sidechain's do nothing to effect the Sound Money aspect. Sidechains are sub-coins that only exist within the 21M supply limit and this is enforced with 1:1 pegging.

Altcoins (meaning new coins outside of the 21M limit) are the only real threat Bitcoin has, because they are the real threat that can inflate the money supply. 1 year ago I saw altcoin's as becoming a real problem and had second thoughts about the project because "anyone can create a coin".

However the past year has shown that network effects are working as intended, and I'm more comfortable with the altcoin threat not being a problem.

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

[brg444]

this is easily answered.

the scZC can "poach" its security from the MM and direct mining currently dedicated to Bitcoin.   this is enabled by the 2wp.  how does this happen?  b/c it has to happen to protect scBTC that seeks out the same anonymity features that  the ZC sidechain offers and that scZC already has.

 

This is an erronous answer. 2wp does not itself enable MM.

You continue to delusion yourself that somehow people would be interested in a sidechain that has scBTC AND a sidecoin.

In reality, a sidechain with scBTC is what people are looking for. So if given the choice between the two options, they will converge to the obviously safer one that doesn't support a shitcoin with no utility built on top of it. The economics of such a proposition are so stupid I'm at a loss of ideas to explain it to you.

So considering the shady SC you are championing will get no support from users then no miners will care to mine it because it is absent of any value.

Bottom line is your scZC is no more secure than any altcoin. Any argument that you make suggesting so is wrong and based on fallacious arguments.

[tvbcof]

Now divide 21M BTC into  1,000,000 SCs. And this SCs will timestamping thier blocks on MC.

that's sounds terrible.

congratulations, you've just succeeded in breaking the first, and probably the last chance we'll ever have at Sound Money, into 1,000,000 Berkshare Buck locations.

Sounds awesome to me!  I am perfectly free to use the sidechains I want and ignore those I don't want.  As long as Bitcoin remains a neutral playfield I'm happy as a clam.

I cannot figure out for the life of me what you so-called Libertarians have against freedom of choice and have such a hard time imagining it.  Oh well...Life is full of mysteries.  Since I'm basically force to call myself a Libertarian now I guess I'll just have to ignore the posers and bad apples in the bunch.

[brg444]

your insolent behavior and insults have greatly exceeded mine.  everyone needs to factor this in.

Sorry, it is my reaction to willful ignorance and intentional misinformation

[Adrian-x]

...

so no contest then.

[cypherdoc]

your insolent behavior and insults have greatly exceeded mine.  everyone needs to factor this in.

Sorry, it is my reaction to willful ignorance and intentional misinformation

Luke, is that you?

[brg444]

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.   

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up. 
 

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

[Wekkel]

so i ask, if there are billions of SC's in action processing tx fees, where will all the badly needed tx fees come to support Bitcoin in the long run when the blockchain rewards are gone?

The BTC block reward will be more than enough to protect the network for another 20-30 years.

If after that time most transaction fees shift to MM'ed sidecoins to the extent that there are not enough fees on the main chain to support the main chain then one of 2 things will happen, either: 1) Adjustments will be made to shift MM fees from sidecoins to the main chain (after all sidecoins need this too since their protection is based on MM'ing with the main chain) or 2) some side chain will become the main chain since essentially the main chain was abandoned. Note: this wouldn't hurt BTC since at most 21M BTC would transfer over the 1:1 peg.

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I only see bitcoin as Sound Money, it is the entire reason I support the project. If the concept is broken in the slightest I will abandon ship.

Sidechain's do nothing to effect the Sound Money aspect. Sidechains are sub-coins that only exist within the 21M supply limit and this is enforced with 1:1 pegging.

Altcoins (meaning new coins outside of the 21M limit) are the only real threat Bitcoin has, because they are the real threat that can inflate the money supply. 1 year ago I saw altcoin's as becoming a real problem and had second thoughts about the project because "anyone can create a coin".

However the past year has shown that network effects are working as intended, and I'm more comfortable with the altcoin threat not being a problem.

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

This is very much my idea as well. Why are so many afraid of freedom?

[cypherdoc]

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement.  i've talked about this for years here.  how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.   

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up. 
 

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a  bunch of people cheer, yet they do  nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

[brg444]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

[Odalv]

Now divide 21M BTC into  1,000,000 SCs. And this SCs will timestamping thier blocks on MC.

that's sounds terrible.

congratulations, you've just succeeded in breaking the first, and probably the last chance we'll ever have at Sound Money, into 1,000,000 Berkshare Buck locations.

ok,
 
2M BTC  / 1,000,000 SCs => 19M of 21M BTC is holded by holders.

[brg444]

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a  bunch of people cheer, yet they do  nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

Sidechains are the ideal way to preserve Bitcoin's sound money ledger.

Just because you don't understand it and think sidechain = altcoins+inflation doesn't mean that's not true.

[cypherdoc]

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.   

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up. 
 

Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that.

Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were.

Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

[notme]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange.  If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

[brg444]

...

so no contest then.

no contest, I win, right?


 

[brg444]

Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

 

but sidechains are there to save us from altcoins while preserving any useful features they might come up with.


why can't you understand this 

1:1 sidechains + altcoins features = new & improved Bitcoin ledger = everybody win!

It is very tragic that such a Bitcoin supporter as yourself cannot see the light 

[Adrian-x]

The BTC block reward will be more than enough to protect the network for another 20-30 years.

WTF in 30 years the block reward will be 0.10 BTC per block. it costs a minimum of $3300 to make one today.
do you know what the price of bitcoin will be? - I dont, but given the existing reward structure I know it will be as impervious to a 51% stack as it is today, change the prototypical intensive and I'm not so sure.  

If there are no SC and Bitcoin needed to support the same security it has today the price of a a single bitcoin would have to sell for over $30,000 just to maintain the hashing power we have today - that assuming no growth, if there is big growth, and we talking trillions in market cap, a block reward will have to be higher, can you guarantee there will be enough hashing power to protect Bitcoin if miners get most of there revenue from another chain?  

[inca]

Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

 

but sidechains are there to save us from altcoins while preserving any useful features they might come up with.


why can't you understand this 

1:1 sidechains + altcoins features = new & improved Bitcoin ledger = everybody win!

It is very tragic that such a Bitcoin supporter as yourself cannot see the light 

I have only panicked twice since owning bitcoin. First time when the coin validation (white/blacklists) threatened to destroy fungibility. The second time was when sidechains were announced. My fear was the same as cyphers that floating peg sidechains could threaten value and stability of bitcoin.

I have come round to brg's point of view that fixed peg side chains offer new possibilities for bitcoin going forward.