Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.

[1714785106]

1714785106

[1714785106]

1714785106

[1714785106]

1714785106

[1714785106]

1714785106

[cypherdoc]

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>

i just love your imagination!  so refreshing.

great example of what will happen with SC's.  in fact, you're gonna do it.

[cypherdoc]

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.

it's my turn to call you out.

these 2 views of yours are contradictory and were made out of convenience to the discussion at hand.

[cypherdoc]

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

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.

[cypherdoc]

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.

hey, you forgot about Truthcoin!  Cashcoin!  whateva.

you're not the only one with imagination.  just look how this entrepreneuring young man has seen the opportunity in SC's for him to logarithmically increase his advertising claims in what he sees as the next great opportunity for altcoins.  for just one Truthcoin, you can enable all the features of Ethereum, Bitshares, Counterparty, NXT, Dogecoin, uh, i'm exhausted... did i forget any?

looks like it can give you everything you can possibly want:

[cypherdoc]

SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.

and speculation NEVER happens in Bitcoin, right?

[cypherdoc]

"Imagination" being the operative word here.  see, even this simpleton gets it:

[NewLiberty]

"Imagination" being the operative word here.  see, even this simpleton gets it:

FREE LUNCH, someone must alert Dorian!

[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".

Rocks I'll retract my not so funny thread of inconsistency, but why I don't see the ledgers as one and separate is each SC has it's own incentive structure to secure it. While it's convenient to think of them as the same this change in incentives could be a race to the bottom in incentivizing security as others referenced here have pointed out.

[brg444]

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.

You really shouldn't talk about backpedaling, this is really all you've been doing for the last 100 pages.

My argument was never that schemes like this wouldn't happen. In fact, please dig up ONE post where I say so. I'll wait

Of course, and this actually support my point.

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

[brg444]

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?

I think the notion that there is one main ledger is absolutely accurate

In my view, the more accurate definition of sidechains are that they are a sub-ledgers of Bitcoin.

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.

This is the part where I disagree. There are no coins in a sidechain at its inception therefore there is no ledger. The ledger is only created once coins derived from the main ledger (Bitcoin) are locked into the sidechain.

For that reason I believe the best way to describe it is one main ledger equipped with several other sub-ledgers that derive their monetary unit from the main ledger.

[cypherdoc]

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.

You really shouldn't talk about backpedaling, this is really all you've been doing for the last 100 pages.

My argument was never that schemes like this wouldn't happen. In fact, please dig up ONE post where I say so. I'll wait

Of course, and this actually support my point.

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

 the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you down into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2  utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.  

You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton.  

[brg444]

the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2  utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.  

You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton.  

 

you're so basic cypherdoc.

one only has to read the whole discussion to realize how far you've moved the goal posts since your original concerns. you may comfort yourself with your twists and turns to the argument that you have somehow the upper hand but it is tragically obvious to anyone following along you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.

the problem is not that I lack imagination, it is that you suffer from a terrible case of selective reading and convenient ignorance of valid objections to your desperate fearmongering.

the point of this exercise, as you say, was to identify risks that sidechains introduced that were never possible before. I would say you have spectacularly failed at this attempt.

[cypherdoc]

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?

I think the notion that there is one main ledger is absolutely accurate

In my view, the more accurate definition of sidechains are that they are a sub-ledgers of Bitcoin.

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.

This is the part where I disagree. There are no coins in a sidechain at its inception therefore there is no ledger. The ledger is only created once coins derived from the main ledger (Bitcoin) are locked into the sidechain.

For that reason I believe the best way to describe it is one main ledger equipped with several other sub-ledgers that derive their monetary unit from the main ledger.

Lol, earlier on you admitted to me we were dealing with "different"  ledgers after I had to correct you .

Answer this,  what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?

[tvbcof]

I think the notion that there is one main ledger is absolutely accurate

In my view, the more accurate definition of sidechains are that they are a sub-ledgers of Bitcoin.

I would mention that in certain fairly important ways, the transparency of the open blockchain is more of a bug than a feature when it comes to free use of the currency.  Aside from the obvious privacy issues it also cracks the door more than a little for such things as 'red-listing'.

In other ways it is absolutely a feature, and the one which is primarily responsible for the confidence that one may have in the system integrity.  So it, like so many things, is a mixed bag.

Point is that sidechains have the potential to favor and disfavor the pros and cons of this transparency depending on their individual goals.  To the extent that some sidechains will almost certainly put some focus on privacy it will make it significantly more difficult to perform privacy-quashing analysis in the Bitcoin masterchain.

[brg444]

Of course you don't care because you believe your reputation to be teflon but I might suggest your reconsider this position because I am certainly not the only one here who has been disappointed by your deceptive, dishonest attitude and attempt at spreading FUD without proper consideration or knowledge of the facts at hand.

I guess the fact that you recognize I have "generated" criticism of you and your clueless argumentative shows you realize your back is to the wall but please know we are all open to accept your concession and hope that your blind ego will not have us engage in anymore disingenuous arguments.

[cypherdoc]

the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2  utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.  

You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton.  

 

you're so basic cypherdoc.

one only has to read the whole discussion to realize how far you've moved the goal posts since your original concerns. you may comfort yourself with your twists and turns to the argument that you have somehow the upper hand but it is tragically obvious to anyone following along you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.

the problem is not that I lack imagination, it is that you suffer from a terrible case of selective reading and convenient ignorance of valid objections to your desperate fearmongering.

the point of this exercise, as you say, was to identify risks that sidechains introduced that were never possible before. I would say you have spectacularly failed at this attempt.

There you go again.  This was never about taking a set  position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post  way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible  cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path  and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied.  We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.

[cypherdoc]

Did you answer my question about ledgers? 

[brg444]

There you go again.  This was never about taking a set  position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post  way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible  cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path  and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied.  We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.

Oh please, don't make me have to dig up your old posts. You were literally on a witch hunt for the Blockstream devs and their motives and at one point qualified sidechains unequivocally as "sidescams".

This "higher than thou" attitude your are now parading is quite sickening I might say. This was no brainstorm and discussions "meant to stimulate imaginative debate". Your goal all along was to discredit sidechains and their creators

[cypherdoc]

There you go again.  This was never about taking a set  position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post  way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible  cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path  and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied.  We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.

Oh please, don't make me have to dig up your old posts. You were literally on a witch hunt for the Blockstream devs and their motives and at one point qualified sidechains unequivocally as "sidescams".

This "higher than thou" attitude your are now parading is quite sickening I might say. This was no brainstorm and discussions "meant to stimulate imaginative debate". Your goal all along was to discredit sidechains and their creators

Desperation devoid of argument.

I love it.