Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Truthcoin, sounds great, who doesn't want truth?

Lotsa folks don't.  As they say, "The truth will set you free", so basically anyone who does not want some other group to be 'set free'.

(I didn't realize that this was a biblical quote until just now.  Whatever the case, it's a good one.)

Maybe we should include those that don't want to be free themselves, because they are afraid of the responsibility. Conclusion: Truthcoin will fail.  

My comment wasn't about 'truthcoin' which I neither know nor care about.  It was about 'truth'.  If 'truthcoin' is verifiable in implementation ('truth'), my gut sense is that it's probably at least a neutral thing and possibly a good one.  Obviously I would have a vastly better feel for it than 'gut sense' before I took an position (in either a monetary or propaganda sense.)

so herein lies the problem.  

to computer scientists, the truth is either a set of 1's or 0's, ie, yes's or no's.  the longer you've lived the more you realize that the "truth" really is a matter of "opinion".  this is why brg444 says flat out, "they (Bitcoiners) won't do that" (meaning speculate).

an ordinary Bitcoiner may conclude that TC is true merely b/c it offers reward miles (or whatever) even tho they may be pegged at 2TC:1scBTC.  Truthcoin will sell it to them as "you'll wanna keep them in TC for immediate usage", may even offer a little interest, or sell the "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into one!"  point being, they'll say "anything" to keep the value stored in TC.  problem being, mass ordinary Bitcoiner's of the future probably won't have the ability to distinguish, or even care about Sound Money and they will do it.

the reason we're having such a intense debate in the first place is b/c i believe the fundamental assertion of the whitepaper is flawed; that being the currency unit (BTC) can be separated from its blockchain (MC).

[1714045376]

1714045376

[1714045376]

1714045376

[1714045376]

1714045376

[Erdogan]

Sidechains are Bitcoin's fiat.

Like Bitcoin improved on gold, sidechains improve on fiat.

That I disagree with.  Sidechains are a lot more like $20 gold pieces under a gold-backed national monetary regime.  These coins may be 'legal tender' (enforceable as payment for all debts under a legal framework) but they also have very solid utility absent the legal structures which characterize their status as 'fiat'.  They can be melted.

In this parallel, destroying Bitcoin's fungibility (through, say, network infrastructure control and subsequent red-listing) is equivalent to figuring out the alchemy needed to turn lead into gold.

Maybe choice of words wasn't right but I was thinking of fiat in terms of paper currency as legal tender for gold.

Fiat is basically enacting a law to try to peg the value of the paper money to gold money. For instance "in all cases, a payment agreed upon to be in specie, is also considered paid when paid with paper". In the 1920s Germany the meme went: A mark is a mark is a mark (whether it is gold or paper). When printing proceeds, the link eventually breaks, and effectively, after that, gold is forbidden as money in trade until the fiat law is withdrawn.

[Erdogan]

Truthcoin, sounds great, who doesn't want truth?

Lotsa folks don't.  As they say, "The truth will set you free", so basically anyone who does not want some other group to be 'set free'.

(I didn't realize that this was a biblical quote until just now.  Whatever the case, it's a good one.)

Maybe we should include those that don't want to be free themselves, because they are afraid of the responsibility. Conclusion: Truthcoin will fail. 

My comment wasn't about 'truthcoin' which I neither know nor care about.  It was about 'truth'.  If 'truthcoin' is verifiable in implementation ('truth'), my gut sense is that it's probably at least a neutral thing and possibly a good one.  Obviously I would have a vastly better feel for it than 'gut sense' before I took an position (in either a monetary or propaganda sense.)

I get it, it was a joke anyway. 

[cypherdoc]

here's a great example of what i'm talking about:

Solvency, Lost in the Fog at the Fed

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/the-feds-ambiguous-definition-of-solvency.html?_r=0

the title could just have easily been "Truth, Lost in the Fog at the Fed".

[brg444]

this was one of your most sensible post and it seems you have come around to some my line of thinking. there are some things I take exception with though...

Somewhat, if value is created on a SC that is greater than that of Bitcoin the Bitcoin stays there.

It is not that the value is greater but merely different. Sidechains serve a different utility than BTC. Some might value convenience more (SC), others prefer security & liquidity (BTC).

Decentralized SC that function as a means of exchange and use merged mining will probably offer the most security miners will mine all viable ones and the difficulty will be in close equilibrium with Bitcoin. They can be thought off as secure as Bitcoin.

I'm glad you are able to come to that conclusion as well. Some it appears are to shortsighted to believe this could happen.

The users will go wherever it's most cost effective to exchange value, on the SC an increase in value is reflected in the price of Bitcoin, however that increase in value is attributed to being the biggest network with the lower fees, this increase in BTC value won't be reflected in mining revenue because it comes at the expense of sacrificing profits, leaving the network less secure.

I'm having some problem with that train of thought. First, it seems to me that the increase in value is not originated on the SC. Some will suggest that scBTC are traded on exchange but I don't find that to be convenient for users. Who would buy a premium scBTC on exchange when you can buy a regular BTC and convert it 1:1? Therefore, it is BTC's value that increases because of users finding value in the attached SCs.

Having said that, I'm not sure about the jump you're making about Bitcoin "sacrificing profits" and miners subsequently leaving the network less secure. Maybe you can expand on that?

The SC that offer additional utility at a premium or greatest arbitrage will alow miners to grow and secure the network, that hashing power is distributed over the whole network, those coins that earn the most for miners, when this type of growth happens will incentivized to mine those SC, they will drive new investment in mining and become more secure. In this case this network will be growing and Bitcoin and other SC will be getting the benefits of added security.

Agree with most of that

This growth is inflationary taking value out of Bitcoin, the market locks it in. I'd only consider the growth inflationary because that is value on top of Bitcoin in that scenario Bitcoin is dragged up but it's not the source of the growth.

As stated above, I disagree with that logic. Bitcoin is the source of the growth because Bitcoin is the underlying monetary unit. Users will buy BTC to participate in this economy and access the different SCs. Bitcoin is never "dragged up".

[brg444]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds? 

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

[cypherdoc]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

again, no substance or imagination from you!:

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>

[Odalv]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

again, no substance or imagination from you!:

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>

From sidechain.pdf

A suitably extended scripting system and an asset-aware transaction format would allow the
creation of useful transactions from well-audited components, such as the merger of a bid and
an ask to form an exchange transaction, enabling the creation of completely trustless peer-to-peer
marketplaces for asset exchange and more complex contracts such as trustless options[FT13]. These
contracts could, for example, help reduce the volatility of bitcoin itself.

[cypherdoc]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

again, no substance or imagination from you!:

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>

From sidechain.pdf

A suitably extended scripting system and an asset-aware transaction format would allow the
creation of useful transactions from well-audited components, such as the merger of a bid and
an ask to form an exchange transaction, enabling the creation of completely trustless peer-to-peer
marketplaces for asset exchange and more complex contracts such as trustless options[FT13]. These
contracts could, for example, help reduce the volatility of bitcoin itself.

no one's doubting you except for unimaginative, narrow minded, pidgeon-holed shills around here who think only non-speculative up & up businesses will be exploiting SC's.

[NewLiberty]

It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack.  Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.

If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people.  What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip. 

For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each.  No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

[cypherdoc]

It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack.  Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.

If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people.  What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip.  

For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each.  No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

i've already went thru that one early on in the 200 pgs +.  but i lol'd at the name    reminded me of a billiard shot.

but i here ya and i expect you to be trolled hard as i was for that one.

[brg444]

Thank you for making my point! You are  exactly what I was  looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin!  And they said it won't happen  

Answer:  it might not be a scam!  But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according  to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition .

I'm sorry but you have sorely misunderstood the gist of the comment in the link you posted. Worse, you mistakingly figured it would support your arguments.

Merged-mining, the way it was described in this comment, is essentally supporting multiple competing currencies : altcoins

Now sidechains, as I hope you have come to understand from our discussions, do not enable altcoins in any significant way.

The primary use case of sidechains is not to bootstrap altcoins on top of them.

In fact, to most of the Blockstream developers (from comments read), this mere notion is absurd. Sidechains were not created to "go to war & destroy" altcoins as you might like to think. In reality, altcoins are simply made irrelevant.

While you seem to have problem with "devs dev-ing" this is what they do : use technology to improve processes. Did the Blockstream guys dislike scammy alts? Of course, everyone does. Did they find important to leverage altcoins' innovation to improve the Bitcoin ecosystem? My opinion is this is the idea here.

At any given time there is a certain amount of demand for a Bitcoin like currency to make transactions. That need doesn’t increase with more competition. That means that the transactional demand for Bitcoin is really the same as the transactional demand for all substantially similar forms of payment. As more currencies are competing to fill the same demand they actually reduce the demand for the other currencies as they become more widely used.

This theory is blatantly ignorant of network effect. This is another reason why I found it strange for you to pull this one up from the 2012 cementary where it belong.. You do realize this guy is the 2012 version of you Essentially, his proposition is that because of merged-mining, Bitcoins' competing currencies will leverage the security of the network and create a race to the bottom for the most "cost-effective" currency.

Well it's been almost 3 years now and there has been no sign of his theory being proven right. Additionally, Bitcoin's network effect has been growing along, making it even less probable.

[Odalv]

It may be time to throw a new another risk into the mix for consideration.
An economic attack.  Lets call this one the side coin peg in a fiat hole.

If there is a peg and scBTC and BTC have the same price in fiat in the minds of people.  What happens when we use altcoin economics for the classic pump scenario.
This is where you use a third asset to do a circular round trip.  

For example:
Say I have 10 BTC and they are worth 100 each, I convert to scBTC, then sell the scBTC for $100USD each, then buy more BTC with the $1000, but there were no sellers so maybe I pay 101 each.  No problem, I will be able to sell the scBTC at 101 now too, so I do it and do this repeatedly.

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

i've already went thru that one early on in the 200 pgs +.  but i lol'd at the name    reminded me of a billiard shot.

but i here ya and i expect you to be trolled hard as i was for that one.

I really do not know what is rationale of this debate.
1) SCs exist
2) SC will exist
SC is not somehing new or something what can be destroyed.

Only new thing is a change in Bitcoin protocol.  Support to verify new dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS) at protocol level.

[brg444]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

I sincerely hope this was a joke. A very bad one at that.

again, no substance or imagination from you:

Again you show your lack of depth  

My comment was not about the feasibility of this scheme.

It was simply an observation of the stupidity of such a remark. Classic desperate and disingenous proclamation on your part.

When has Bitcoin ever had to explain itself "to the Fed"? How do you suggest that happen?

[brg444]

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

Here is what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario :

If, as you say, people believe in the peg (which they absolutely should) then they will not buy your scBTC. In reality, the market has no incentive to purchase your scBTC over BTC if they are the same price.  

The reason for this? Well you have suggested it yourself : the "block delay in spend-ability". What makes the best money? The most cost effective and versatile exchangeable asset. BTC is more easily exchangeable with fiat (because of liquidity) and other scBTCs than scBTC is and is also more cost-effective at doing so. No matter the 1:1 fiat peg, BTC is a more desirable unit than scBTC. BTC has better fungibility and liquidity in the economy than scBTC.

[smooth]

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

You're getting warm.

[brg444]

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

That scheme has been available to altcoins every since the introduction of merged-mining.

[brg444]

First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger.

But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all?

I suggest you read Adrian's very good post that indicate valuable utility SC will be MM at possibly the same hashing power than BTC.

[brg444]

The other reason they might mm or direct mine Truthcoin is out of ignorance. Not everyone has got this figured out you know. Just look at the disagreements we"re having here on what's happening. 

 

How many altcoins are MM "out of ignorance"?

[NewLiberty]

In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges.  No BTC is sold to the market.  Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).

Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.

There is no peg.
There is no spoon.

Here is what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario :

If, as you say, people believe in the peg (which they absolutely should) then they will not buy your scBTC. In reality, the market has no incentive to purchase your scBTC over BTC if they are the same price.  

The reason for this? Well you have suggested it yourself : the "block delay in spend-ability". What makes the best money? The most cost effective and versatile exchangeable asset. BTC is more easily exchangeable with fiat (because of liquidity) and other scBTCs than scBTC is and is also more cost-effective at doing so. No matter the 1:1 fiat peg, BTC is a more desirable unit than scBTC. BTC has better fungibility and liquidity in the economy than scBTC.

Here is where you are flatly wrong.  There clearly is an incentive, the time incentive.
To change BTC to scBTC, you will have to wait for 100 blocks or so, whatever the confirmation time may be.
If you buy them at exchange, there is no wait.

This confirmation exchange value is created in both ways in the transaction.  People will pay a premium for time, localbitcoin pricing is evidence enough of this.