Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

look everyone!  a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!

 

looks legit, would invest +1

the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will.

A fool and his money.... yeah you know the rest

[cypherdoc]

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board.  Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.  

I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers.

At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks.

you're cherry picking old news.

it's changing for the better.  for instance, Bitstamp's main investor is Pantera Capital who is not only forcing founders to comply with consumer regs but is also risking equity that can be seized if Bitstamp tries something funny.  this is happening across the industry.

[brg444]

you're cherry picking old news.

it's changing for the better.  for instance, Bitstamp's main investor is Pantera Capital who is not only forcing founders to comply with consumer regs but is also risking equity that can be seized if Bitstamp tries something funny.  this is happening across the industry.

Of course, and this actually support my point.

We are going to see MtGoxCHAIN, MoohlahCHAIN but eventually CoinbaseCHAIN, CircleCHAIN or BitstampCHAIN are going to be established and these are the ones "ordinary people" are going to use

[rocks]

So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.

Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.

no i don't agree.  i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk.

ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume.

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views.  is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9459338#msg9459338

These are separate threads.  

The thread above is regarding perceptions of fault by ordinary users and will Bitcoin beheld responsible for loses (which decreases trust) or will Sidechains be held responsible.

The link'ed thread was regarding the 21M cap protection and whether or not that concept is lost in SC. I've maintained the bitcoin mainchain will protect that.

[Adrian-x]

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board.  Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.  

I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers.

At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks.

a cretin class of investor lost wealth, the allocation according to the bitcoin blockchain was unaffected. (I'm glad we could hold someone responsible)
i think people need to learn how to use inelastic memory asset ledgers, I'm not convinced yet we need to adjust and make the ledger more flexible to attract investors who see no value in an inelastic asset of bitcoin as is.

[cypherdoc]

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times.   

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" 

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words.  i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

[brg444]

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times.   

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" 

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words.  i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

Exposing the weaknesses of altcoins to support the advantages of using the sidechain technology.. how dare they do that!

[Melbustus]

Reposting this since I think it was missed. From one of the sidechains whitepaper authors:

Seen this yet?

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf

Of course, “developing your own cryptosystem” is the purview of only cranks and researchers, so it was reasonably assumed that none of these “altcoins”, as they were called, could ever be plausibly presented for public use.
Boy, were we ever wrong on that one.
...
If you are, or are planning to, develop and release an “altcoin” to the public, this document reminds you that you are playing with fire. This sort of behavior was cute on sci.crypt, a community populated mainly by cryptographic experts where there was no risk that your charlatanism would be mistaken for anything legitimate, and where there was no ability to store value in your scheme anyway.
...
The Bitcoin community differs in both those respects. Your crankery is not cute. You are not a cryptographer, and yet are releasing a homebrew cryptosystem, misrepresenting your own qualifications, and encouraging others to store value in your creation. These actions are incompetent, dishonest and reprehensibly dangerous.

lol.

That's Andrew Poelstra's "A Treatise on Altcoins". He's even harsher than many of us in this thread! He's also listed as an author on the sidechains whitepaper.

[cypherdoc]

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times.  

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!"  

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words.  i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

Exposing the weaknesses of altcoins to support the advantages of using the sidechain technology.. how dare they do that!

well, if you hadn't said this...

please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins.

...then i wouldn't have said that.  and neither would have Melbustus.

[Adrian-x]

So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.

Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.

no i don't agree.  i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk.

ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume.

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views.  is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9459338#msg9459338

These are separate threads.  

The thread above is regarding perceptions of fault by ordinary users and will Bitcoin beheld responsible for loses (which decreases trust) or will Sidechains be held responsible.

The link'ed thread was regarding the 21M cap protection and whether or not that concept is lost in SC. I've maintained the bitcoin blockmain will protect that.

this is not going well for resulting complexity in understanding. while I'm clear and understand your position and how side chains function  I'm just going to point out the hummer in this situation with a little metaphor:

 "Re: Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP." is the main thread, and the side thread 1.0 is a discussion on Side Chains, the respectful tone in which people are conversing after NL's intervention is known as side thread 2.0

we have bug that is a reconciliation disconnect between side thread 1.0 and side thread 2.0 that the contribution to side thread 1.0 was not supposed make you believe they were one and the same, but the side thread 2.0 contributing is supposed to be interpreted as the risk of a SC failure is mitigated because people will think of them as separate.

please dont take offense im just having fun  i respect your input thank you.

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

[NewLiberty]

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

[rocks]

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 and the main thread work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

[rocks]

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

That's a great way to put it.

It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little.

When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar.

It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem.

[rocks]

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board.  Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.  

If there are billions of these SC as you say, the vast majority will be so small that the failure of any one would hardly even be noticed. Today there are tons of bitcoin website services and lots of them have gone down/disappeared/etc. Most were so small they were not noticed (I'm speaking to you betsofbitco.in)

[Adrian-x]

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

I still see the main chain as the master chain being Bitcoin blockchain, and the side chain as being pegged and validated. even though the side chain is criptograficaly pegged so the 2 chains can be reconciled they are separate chains running on separate servers in separate locations a single merged ledger as you put it will never exist, it can only be constructed through a reconciliation proses.

the inconsistency i found funny was actual the claim that "These are separate threads".

[Zarathustra]

Five-fold increase of 'My Wallet Transaction Volume' within 3 month! How this?

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-transaction-volume?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

[NewLiberty]

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

That's a great way to put it.

It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little.

When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar.

It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem.

Well... Bitcoin was actually hacked (malliated transactions), but that wasn't what caused (most of) mtgox's problems, it was just used as convenient cover for the other problems.  MK compounded the news confusion by blaming it and maybe bought a few more days, so MK should get the blame on that newsfusion more so than the news that reported it.

I don't know if it is a new problem or not, but the explanations and creation of understandings in the minds of the broader public may be made more difficult by the "one ledger only" notions.  EmptyGox very clearly had its own ledger which at some point became irreconcilable with the Bitcoin block chain.  If it were a side chain company that had monkeyed with its code to do these shenanigans, it would possibly been more noticeable (if it were being openly mined by folks that examine source changes), but if they managed to keep it hidden, or were privately mining (like Ripple?) it may also be more difficult to explain to the "one ledger only" believers how this is possible.

In the earlier example where scBTC₁ failed and scBTC₂ became an altcoin, at some point in this process there are very clearly (at least) two separate ledgers.  
I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able.  Others might suggest some other time.  Maybe at one of the many changes that resulted in the failure of scBTC₁, or maybe after it fails, or maybe never and the scBTC₂ altcoin and Bitcoin are still just one ledger.  In that case, when the ledger of scBTC₁ failed, some might get confused and say the Bitcoin ledger failed.  (Since they have been told that there is only one ledger, and something failed, so it must be that.)

It seems simpler and more sensible to me to consider each side chain its own potentially merge-able ledger.  It is hard enough to try to explain how a ledger is merged with "something" when there is only one ledger in the first place, with what then is it merged?

[Odalv]

we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins.  if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.

NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.

 

please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem.

lol, i guess i'm hearing things.

I agree 100% with brg444. SC is not AltCoin. SC is new feature/service over Bitcoin.

[Odalv]

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

Odalv, you need to bring us some imagination!

Company can create new asset. -> Company shares. -> This is new AltCoin(Shares) where company is only miner. Company MUST comply with law. 1 AltCoin = 1 Share.

You can trade Bitcon:Share on decentralized exchange but you must comply KYC/AML.  Shares cannot be swapped anonymously. SEC will control swaps. => Company (miner of blockchain) will not allow transfer to new pKey (if you do not deliver KYC/AML).

[Odalv]

You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.

Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.

Edit2:
Architecture

<bitcoin>
  <crypto-noteSC> - decentralized network  btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
         <scBTC - asset>
         <scDrug - asset>
        <silkRoadSC-1 /> - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
        <silkRoadSC-2 /> - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
   </crypto-noteSC>
</bitcoin>