Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

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.

your No4, i have only panicked once, I've been accumulating Bitcoins since Q4 2011, and this was it.

[rocks]

you need to dig way deeper than that rocks.  have you been following all the comments since the paper release here in this thread?  read them all and see if you come to the same conclusion.

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

And it shows.

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

I have made several lengthy replies, that several others have supported, and each time you have not responded in any meaningful manner, and simply ignored the thrusts of my counter arguments to your comments by saying something along the lines of "I already addressed that 80 pages ago, take it as a given you're wrong".  

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

But yet you would not trust my incessant buy recommendations during  the entire year when you were subbed to my newsletter when bitcoin went straight up.

How does that even come close to answering my simple question?  You clearly don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

I am in the exact same position as notme: CS background (good one), strong knowledge of Bitcoin internals built over 3 years and a decent understanding of SC.

Please explain with specifics HOW sidechains inflate the bitcoin money supply and break Bitcoin's Sound Money property or anything else. If it was discussed 80 pages ago, great then you should be able to easily summarize the past discussion into simple points by now. I believe I have summarized a few times why this is likely to not be the case and why what is being described is simply the (ever present) altcoin threat and nothing more.

[Adrian-x]

keep the topic to bitcoin and gold. we need Altcoins they not a treat. take that idea elsewhere.  

 

you can't make this stuff up.

someone who champion the preservation of Bitcoin's hard money unique ledger and is worried about inflation but says "we need altcoins"

 

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

[brg444]

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

1. This is an hyperbole and would take a considerably particular turn of event to happen
2. I'm not sure if this is the 100th or 1000th I've said it : miners are incentivised to mine the Bitcoin blockchain as long as there is block subsidy. It is trivial for them to MM whatever chain has value and can create value for them and this is what they will do.

[brg444]

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

[Adrian-x]

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.

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

I thought I had, brg444 is making so much noise it was missed.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9409835#msg9409835

I forgot to add that miners if for profit, only those without Bitcoin savings should welcome MM SC as they get a better return on there mining investment and would be handicapped if Bitcoin diminishing block rewards were limited to Bitcoin the dominant Value Chain.

Looking at examples of past pool operators one may even be incentivized and financially motivated to lock value in the side chain wile doing a MM attack on Bitcoin.

[brg444]

Adrian, I'm not sure you have read the other thread but I will copy this here in case you haven't

Here is Adam Back adressing what seems to be your main concern.

Its not that a sidechain displaces bitcoin hypothetically and that this is bad; a sidechain is bitcoin, its the mechanism to internetwork bitcoin, to build on it.  Sidechains no more displace bitcoin than HTTP displaces the TCP and IP protocol it is transported on.  Alt-coins and alt-shares are in nominal competition with bitcoin, though it seems highly unlikely they would catchup with bitcoin's network effect nor reach an appreciable real-life usage; but sidechains are not in competition.

Bitcoin has one advantage over sidechains - it has the subsidy, and full node security, so I'm sure it'll be able to defend itself against abandonment or insecurity, and sidechains depend on bitcoin anyway so all bitcoin users on which ever chains have a meta-incentive to see bitcoin main remain secure.   We have decades of subsidy ahead to deal with fee-only security for bitcoin, and sidechains may move forward the ways to do that because the sidechain by default has only fee security from the start.

Anyway one potential use for a sidechain is to host a beta for a major new bitcoin version.  If that version after say $1b value running in it for a year, gets upgraded into bitcoin, that hasnt displaced bitcoin, its facilitated its feature and performance upgrade, which is a good thing for everyone.

The exciting thing about the internet wasnt just the ability to send IP packets, but all the applications and permissionless innovation that could be built using that transport.  Same for bitcoin.

[Adrian-x]

so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that.

so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth.

if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible.
  

You guys really just skimmed through my post heh 

Of course there will be thousands of SC serving differents financial purposes (stock issuance, etc. etc.)

But you can only attach so many additional functions to Bitcoin as money (store of value, means of exchange). Bitcoin as is works perfectly fine as store of value but has some deficiencies as a mean of exchange. Sidechains are here to solve these without relying on trusted third parties in a way that is interoperable with Bitcoin blockchain, preserves the Bitcoin ledger and prevents issues of trust and fractional reserve in the most decentralized way possible

so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)

[brg444]

so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)

Logical outcome of what exactly?

And what do you mean by the last part of your comments?

[Tstar]

this year was  worst year for all commodities including gold,silver,oil also for cryptocurrencies like bitcoin,litecoin etc

[Adrian-x]

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

1. This is an hyperbole and would take a considerably particular turn of event to happen
2. I'm not sure if this is the 100th or 1000th I've said it : miners are incentivised to mine the Bitcoin blockchain as long as there is block subsidy. It is trivial for them to MM whatever chain has value and can create value for them and this is what they will do.

I'll point my miners wherever i get the biggest reward, (value as i define it) I'll MM anything of value, if my business is sustained by tx feed in a SC blocks, and the Bitcoin Block reward is not a significant income stream, I will have no incentive to mine it. the hashrate will grow on the chain that has the most value, I may even keep earning income on the SC and contribute to a coordinated attack to prevent people moving out of the profitable SC and into Bitcoin, note there would be an insignificant cost to me to do so, as I get my income from the SC.    

[Adrian-x]

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

[rocks]

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

[Adrian-x]

so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)

Logical outcome of what exactly?

And what do you mean by the last part of your comments?

i take it you agree all the above were possible
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9449317#msg9449317

[Erdogan]

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.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

[Adrian-x]

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

[hdbuck]

hehehe just colling things a bit in here: ^^

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates


Debt as % of GDP:

103.56%




Interesting Facts

    You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 69,719 times with the debt amount!

    If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 1,955,980 km, or 1,215,389 miles high!

    That's equivalent to 5.09 trips to the Moon!




yeah to the moon  

[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. 
 

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.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).

whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

[Erdogan]

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.

Apropos decentralized exchange, I found this interesting bit in the sidecoin white paper:

"Appendix C Atomic swaps"

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Page 26

Basically a trade where either both payments succeed, or both payments do not succeed. (Risk free trading).

I see no reason that this requires different coins where value is pegged together.

Is it possible to do this today without changing any of the two coin types?

[Adrian-x]

hehehe just colling things a bit in here: ^^

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates


Debt as % of GDP:

103.56%




Interesting Facts

    You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 69,719 times with the debt amount!

    If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 1,955,980 km, or 1,215,389 miles high!

    That's equivalent to 5.09 trips to the Moon!




yeah to the moon  

so the cost for hyper inflating paper dollars is not viable.