Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

[NewLiberty]

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  

owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.

this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?

GLD buys it and stores it in a vault.

I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?

ETF aren't typically 1:1 because there are costs of management and they pay themselves and their legal fees out of the fund.

This is from the Winklevoss ETP s-1 filing with the SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm#tx562329_19
(the "sponsors" are a wholly owned company by the Winklevoss)

The Sponsor’s Fee will accrue daily and will be payable in kind (in Bitcoins) monthly in arrears. To pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Trust will transfer Bitcoins from the Trust Custody Account to an account maintained by the Trustee for the Sponsor (“Sponsor Custody Account”). The Sponsor, from time to time, may waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee at its discretion for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to continue a waiver after the end of such stated period, and, if such waiver is not continued, the Sponsor’s Fee will thereafter be paid in full. Presently, the Sponsor does not intend to waive any of its fee. The Trustee will from time to time deliver to the Sponsor Custody Account Bitcoins in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of the Sponsor’s Fee. The Trustee may from time to time transfer from the Trust Custody Account and deliver to a segregated account of the Trustee (“Trust Expense Account”) Bitcoins for sale in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. Accordingly, the number of Bitcoins to be transferred and sold will vary from time to time depending on the level of the Trust’s expenses and the Blended Bitcoin Price. See “Business of the Trust—Trust Expenses.”
     Each delivery or transfer of Bitcoins by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses will be a taxable event to Shareholders.

[Odalv]

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

cypherdoc, isn't  this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?

Edit:
Gox even allowed exchange goxBTC between users(if they used address generated by gox). And they traded at https://www.bitcoinbuilder.com/

[cypherdoc]

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

cypherdoc, isn't  this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?

Edit:
Gox even allowed exchange goxBTC between users(if they used address generated by gox). And they traded at https://www.bitcoinbuilder.com/

 Uh oh,  were starting to recycle the same arguments.

How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?

[Odalv]

How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?

Example:

Simplified version of exchange.

1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
 - it can be implemented as central authority server  b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
 - merger can only pair  bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.

2. now I can create 2-way-peg  (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
 - I can deposit asset into Merger
 - I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
 - Merger can be easy audited

3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.

Edit:
Trying to explain it more.
It will look same as gox (gox will have goxBTC not real bitcoins)
I'll use proof of trading  and  2wp  (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol) gives me real bitcoins.

[cypherdoc]

How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?

Example:

Simplified version of exchange.

1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
 - it can be implemented as central authority server  b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
 - merger can only pair  bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.

2. now I can create 2-way-peg  (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
 - I can deposit asset into Merger
 - I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
 - Merger can be easy audited

3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.

But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof

[Odalv]

How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?

Example:

Simplified version of exchange.

1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
 - it can be implemented as central authority server  b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
 - merger can only pair  bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.

2. now I can create 2-way-peg  (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
 - I can deposit asset into Merger
 - I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
 - Merger can be easy audited

3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.

But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof

It is too complicated to explain. ( 20 pages of pdf ).

2wp can be replaced anytime (I mean switching from Federated Humans to SNARK scheme)

For the begging let's use  5 federated human judges who can use brain and can check trades. (ticker log)

You didn't answer me
"isn't  this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?"

[cypherdoc]

How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?

Example:

Simplified version of exchange.

1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
 - it can be implemented as central authority server  b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
 - merger can only pair  bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.

2. now I can create 2-way-peg  (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
 - I can deposit asset into Merger
 - I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
 - Merger can be easy audited

3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.

But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof

It is too complicated to explain. ( 20 pages of pdf ).

2wp can be replaced anytime (I mean switching from Federated Humans to SNARK scheme)

For the begging let's use  5 federated human judges who can use brain and can check trades. (ticker log)

You didn't answer me
"isn't  this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?"

Maybe but you can't explain in less than 20 pages of pdf why we should prefer that system or if it's even safe or efficient. Are current wn wallets or exchanges getting safer? Maybe.

[Odalv]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

[cypherdoc]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

[Odalv]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

Not, ... oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

[cypherdoc]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question.  once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p.  my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders.  i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires.  which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

[cypherdoc]

it's starting already.

Truthcoin, enabled by SC's!

http://www.truthcoin.info/

[Odalv]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question.  once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p.  my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders.  i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires.  which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

Now this new SC is same as original Bitcoin + has native support for new signatures (SPV, SNARK ...) -> new version of bitcoin.
Now inside this SC, it is possible to create new SCs (eg fastWallet, exchanges, ...)

[cypherdoc]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question.  once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p.  my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders.  i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires.  which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

Now this new SC is same as original Bitcoin + has native support for new signatures (SPV, SNARK ...) -> new version of bitcoin.
Now inside this SC, it is possible to create new SCs (eg fastWallet, exchanges, ...)

you don't mean another second SC for fastWallet and exchanges, do you?  b/c i would consider that a disadvantage as that would mean BTC would have to traverse 2 separate SPV proofs with contest/confirmation periods in order to get to 2nd SC which would increase risk of escaping SC's in general in an emergency due to time delays and technical failures. 

i would hope fastWallet exchanges  would be decentralized and anonymous and exist on the 1st SC away from Bitcoin. 

[Odalv]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question.  once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p.  my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders.  i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires.  which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

Now this new SC is same as original Bitcoin + has native support for new signatures (SPV, SNARK ...) -> new version of bitcoin.
Now inside this SC, it is possible to create new SCs (eg fastWallet, exchanges, ...)

you don't mean another second SC for fastWallet and exchanges, do you?  b/c i would consider that a disadvantage as that would mean BTC would have to traverse 2 separate SPV proofs with contest/confirmation periods in order to get to 2nd SC which would increase risk of escaping SC's in general in an emergency due to time delays and technical failures. 

i would hope fastWallet exchanges  would be decentralized and anonymous and exist on the 1st SC away from Bitcoin. 

I think I'll not need create more oracles inside SC b/c bitcoinSC may support it. I'm not sure. I have to go for now.

[cypherdoc]

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging  oracle can verify DMMS  and if is valid  then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC.  how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

 and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question.  once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p.  my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders.  i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires.  which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

Now this new SC is same as original Bitcoin + has native support for new signatures (SPV, SNARK ...) -> new version of bitcoin.
Now inside this SC, it is possible to create new SCs (eg fastWallet, exchanges, ...)

you don't mean another second SC for fastWallet and exchanges, do you?  b/c i would consider that a disadvantage as that would mean BTC would have to traverse 2 separate SPV proofs with contest/confirmation periods in order to get to 2nd SC which would increase risk of escaping SC's in general in an emergency due to time delays and technical failures.  

i would hope fastWallet exchanges  would be decentralized and anonymous and exist on the 1st SC away from Bitcoin.  

I think I'll not need create more oracles inside SC b/c bitcoinSC may support it. I'm not sure. I have to go for now.

i sure love your imagination with these things.  it's so much more imaginative and mind expanding than some others around here.

i agree with you. there are going to be billions of these things!

[cypherdoc]

this is an interesting primer on MM and the risks of MM an sidecoin:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

it's starting already.

Truthcoin, enabled by SC's!

http://www.truthcoin.info/

Fortunately Truthcoin is being proposed as a sort of spin-off if it can't be done as a sidechain. Paul Sztorc recognizes that an altcoin or alternative store of value is a terrible idea.

What if he launched it ala Counterparty, as an unmined sidechain that rides on Bitcoin and has no other tokens than the pegged ones?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

This is because successful sidechains would allow Bitcoin transactions to be disconnected from Bitcoin miners.

Interesting read but considering this is the premise of your scenario I have no choice but to disagree with your conclusions.

Txs fees are not escaping Bitcoin miners. As I've explained in another post, instead of miners sharing a % of the same pie, the txs fees are now split into different slices which are all available for miners to MM.

The point is that there'd be too little money paid for mining Bitcoin. Sure miners could continue to get paid, but not for mining Bitcoin. I don't think "oh yeah you can also merge-mine Bitcoin for a small extra profit" is a robust enough incentive.