Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

you're missing the point again.  TC is probably going to maintain the 1:1 peg.  if not, i would advise them to do so to fool ppl like you who don't understand what's going on so that you can still get fleeced by being tempted to trade 1scBTC for perhaps an inflationary 2TC.

In fact YOU are the one missing the point. Point being that sidechains do not enable altcoins. In fact they considerably incapacitate their "raison d'être" by making their inflationary coins dispensable.

[cypherdoc]

like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.    

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.  this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain.  and they can sell that to ordinary users by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp.  after all, it's true, right? look at the Truthcoin ad below:



the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  you'll see claims like "Truthcoin:  Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0".  it's all there:



SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue.  once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today.  you can't say that won't happen.  you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again.  unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.  it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg.  if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv.  they won't all fail.

this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's.

now your turn to answer a question.  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem?

[cypherdoc]

do i have to remind you again?  these sidecoins are going to happen to SC's whether you like or not as well.  you will have to live with that crow for the rest of your life.  they are going to love the fact that they can suck BTC off MC so easily BTC--->scBTC--->2TC at no charge.  they can't believe you're letting them into the house!

[brg444]

what makes you say that?  why don't you ask keystroke why he would gladly do it?

I do not pretend to have the power of making insinuations out of keystroke's post and pretend to know his intentions the way you have been doing for the last couple of pages.

Of course it was expected of you to jump on a 10 word sentence and twist it to fit your argument.

no it's not.  NL just explained to you a decapitation attack which i think is a reasonable concern for a new risk created by SC's

The "decapitation" attack is very much theoretical and sound to me just like another scam scheme that can be avoided by proper due diligence of the user. I fail to see how this become a potential bitcoin-killer. There are only so many fools.

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  unprofitable miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.

Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post

What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words.

if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. this is where dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security.  this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money.

We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply.

Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted.

[cypherdoc]

basically your problem comes down to this:  you think you can control speculation by using SC's.

i think you are very wrong on this.  altcoin devs are going to have a field day with SC's of all types:  corporations, banks, reward programs.  hell, even Austin Hill wants gvts to have one.  Jack Liu has all sorts of ideas too:

http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-coming

my arguments have pidgeon holed you down to a scenario that HAS to play out for SC's to work as you envision:  2 utility chains for fast txs and anonynity with 100% MM and NO SPECULATIVE SC's.

that expectation of yours is ludicrous.  we already have TC and keystroke IRL examples of what's coming.  we have the whitepaper talking about Freicoin demurrage coin, section 5.2 Issued assets, pg 15 talks about complementary currencies, pg 16:

Subsidy.
A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively
forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result
would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.

these are all coming with SC's yet you persist with your delusions.

[brg444]

basically your problem comes down to this:  you think you can control speculation by using SC's.

i think you are very wrong on this.  altcoin devs are going to have a field day with SC's of all types:  corporations, banks, reward programs.  hell, even Austin Hill wants gvts to have one.  Jack Liu has all sorts of ideas too:

http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-coming

my arguments have pidgeon holed you down to a scenario that HAS to play out for SC's to work as you envision:  2 utility chains for fast txs and anonynity with 100% MM and NO SPECULATIVE SC's.

that expectation of yours is ludicrous.  we already have TC and keystroke IRL examples of what's coming.  we have the whitepaper talking about Freicoin demurrage coin, section 5.2 Issued assets, pg 15 talks about complementary currencies, pg 16:

Subsidy.
A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively
forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result
would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.

these are all coming with SC's yet you persist with your delusions.

I don't think I can control it, I'm arguing the market will go for the safest, most risk-averse options.

I believe I am the one who has pidgeon holed the other by effectively confirming that all of your risk scenario are already possible through altcoins but have not materialized.

You continue to dodge my arguments because I don't believe you have an answer to them

You're afraid of altcoins, but altcoins already exist. You assume I think only non-speculative sidechains will be created when in fact I'm only arguing that now that it is possible to create them, altcoins are severely incapacitated and will not prevail in a market looking to preserve the value of its assets. The network effect will continue to work in BTC's favors. Idiots and fools might fall victim to more elaborated schemes through the use of sidechains but bad actors can only stay in business so long and eventually community supported/vetted alternatives suceed. Leaving the scammers in the dirt.

You're shallowness and blind ego is your downfall.

[brg444]

I am also done arguing with you.

You have conveniently avoided most of my posts and have responded to none of my questions.

Your "unprofitable miners" theory is full of holes. As examplified by your inability to correctly answer this post

What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

Also, remember that there is no block reward. You chose to fit your TC theory to a scenario where they use a 1:1 peg. You cannot go back on your words.

if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. this is where dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security.  this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money.

We have not seen it happen with altcoins. Considering most successful sidechains will be using BTC as a monetary unit (1:1 peg) then dooglus scenario does not apply.

Again, you fall into the same fallacy of attaching the altcoin menace to sidechain without proper arguments for why they enable them. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated why they don't. You also casually dismiss the BTC network effect as an irrelevant force when it is the only reason why dooglus scenario did not unfold like he predicted.

Can you address that with sound, reasonable arguments?

[cypherdoc]

like you address any of the thousands of points i have made.    

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.  this is a result of severing the link btwn BTC the currency and BTC the blockchain.  and they can sell that to ordinary users who will gladly use them by saying "risk free put" or "easy way out" when referring to the 2wp.  after all, it's true, right? the peg works? look at the Truthcoin ad below:



the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  you'll see claims like "Truthcoin:  Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0".  it's all there:



SC's are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue.  once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today.  you can't say that won't happen.  you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again.  unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.  it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg.  if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv.  they won't all fail and they will be competition for Bitcoin.

this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's.

now your turn to answer a question.  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem?

[brg444]

there's going to be thousands of these sidecoins created, just like we've seen with TC.  for the first time ever, altcoins have an easy avenue to attract BTC thru the peg at no cost and apparently no risk.

No no no. How can you still say this!? Altcoins can not claim the "risk free put" feature. Either they are altcoin or scBTC. Anyone will be able to verify if the peg is effectively 1:1, it doesn't matter what the coin promoter advertises.

Advertising that you can switch between BTC & TC freely is no indication that the peg is 1:1. It is merely a decentralized exchange process between an altcoin and BTC. This feature alone is not enough to fuel demand for a particular altcoins.

the advertising will be compelling enough to attract users like keystroke.  you'll see claims like "Truthcoin:  Sidechain Enabled", "The New Bitcoin", "Ethereum, Bitshares, CP all wrapped up into One", "The New Bitcoin 2.0".  it's all there:

So again your argument is a more elaborate scam scheme leveraging the "sidechain" brand and using an altcoin will lead to the demise of Bitcoin? You do realize such deceptive schemes can only work so much until the community of fools in general is better advised and has learn from their foolish mistake?

The honeybadger doesn't care about petty criminal schemes. The market, with time, punishes bad actors and create trusted communities around good ones. Good money drives out bad money. Your altscams are in no way a significant threat to Bitcoin. They only threaten idiots and greedy, ill-advised investors.

SCs are disrupting the mining equilibrium by opening other channels for revenue.  once users like keystroke start using TC, speculation will guarantee some mining for sure just like altcoins attract mining today.  you can't say that won't happen.  you guys have been wrong before and you'll be wrong again.  unprofitable Bitcoin miners will defect to speculate on becoming early adopters of TC for block rewards (like when Bitcoin blocks were 50 BTC each) and to collect tx fees from scBTC and TC.  it won't matter if there is a 1:1 peg.  if TC becomes popular enough they could attract MM out of greed. if this plays out significantly over time, this is where the dooglus scenario would come in grinding down overall network security. there are going to be thousands/billions of these, if you believe Odalv.  they won't all fail.

this is the danger for Bitcoin; that it gets converted to an inflationary derivative violating its initial tenet of Sound Money all facilitated by SC's.

Spectacularly wrong, again. Yes, speculation might guarantee SOME mining. Unfortunately SOME mining makes your stupid TC considerably less secure than the BTC blockchain. A situation already observable with conventional altcoins.

So now we have two reasons why the market should and will avoid your scamcoin :
1. Inherently less secure
2. Proposes a scammy altcoin as its monetary unit instead of using the safer 1:1 peg

Remember that no matter the feature your scamcoin will claim, there will be one created exactly the same BUT attracting more users because of its safer, more risk-averse 1:1 peg.

Unprofitable Bitcoin miners can defect to speculate on becoming early adopter of ALTCOIN for block rewards ALREADY. Sidechains do not enable this possibility nor do they come with better equipped altcoins.

If TC becomes popular enough = if ALTcoin becomes popular enough. History shows this is not likely to happen significantly enought to endanger Bitcoin's leading position. It does not matter how many are created, the majority of them will be as irrelevant and insignificant to BTC's value than any other alts.

It seems you are still unable to answer these questions with clear arguments void of distraction and fallacious assumptions :

What you need to answer is why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin? What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

[cypherdoc]

you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC.  and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1.  it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets.  you keep making the same error.

are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?  why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

[brg444]

you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC. and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1.  it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets.  you keep making the same error.

are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?

You're missing the fact that you accepted this scenario made no sense at all because there is no reason for the indepedent TC to exist.

I, the user, only care about the 1:1 peg, I want no part of your floating price scammy garbagecoin.

It is asinine to believe a sidechain would want to support two monetary unit that are not fungible. No use case for this, no incentive for any significant part of the market to participate in such an obviously scammy scheme.

Wire this into your brain, the market is gonna be presented with two scenario :

Sidechain A : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg as monetary unit. No danger of inflation for the users' stake : value is preserved through the peg. Absent of typical native currency volatility.

Sidechain B : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg but for some obscure, unidentified reasons, attaches a scammy altcoin that is not fungible, offers no distinguishable advantage over the pegged unit and exposes the user to dangerous volatility that is natural to bootstrapped altcoins with shady initial distribution.

Unless you present me with a plausible scenario where the bootstrapped altcoin would be of significant interest to the user, then your pipe dream scenario holds no ground.

I will answer your question when you answer mine. You haven't, yet.

1. Why has Namecoin been the only altcoin that has been MM on top of Bitcoin?

2. What incentives were missing for the miners to mine other coins?

3. What additional incentive is there now that we have the scenario of sidechains?

[cypherdoc]

you're missing the fact that the BTC--->scBTC can exist 1:1 with an independent TC on the same SC.  and i'm not claiming the TC has access to the 1:1.  it can attract BTC for speculative purposes all on its own like with prediction markets.  you keep making the same error.

are you going to answer my Q or is this a 1 way thing with you?

You're missing the fact that you accepted this scenario made no sense at all because there is no reason for the indepedent TC to exist.

I, the user, only care about the 1:1 peg, I want no part of your floating price scammy garbagecoin.

It is asinine to believe a sidechain would want to support two monetary unit that are not fungible. No use case for this, no incentive for any significant part of the market to participate in such an obviously scammy scheme.

Wire this into your brain, the market is gonna be presented with two scenario :

Sidechain A : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg as monetary unit. No danger of inflation for the users' stake : value is preserved through the peg. Absent of typical native currency volatility.

Sidechain B : Offers feature X supported by a 1:1 BTC peg but for some obscure, unidentified reasons, attaches a scammy altcoin that is not fungible, offers no distinguishable advantage over the pegged unit and exposes the user to dangerous volatility that is natural to bootstrapped altcoins with shady initial distribution.

Unless you present me with a plausible scenario where the bootstrapped altcoin would be of significant interest to the user, then your pipe dream scenario holds no ground.

I will answer your question when you answer mine. You haven't, yet.

b/c the answer is not an A or B, it's not a 0 or a 1, it's not true or false, it's not either or, it's not black or white.  ppl will make decisions based on shades of grey and everything in btwn.  just b/c you won't do it doesn't mean that millions of other ppl with different opinions, values, likes, dislikes, views on monetary theory WON'T DO IT.  there are plenty of speculators who will want access to prediction markets, just like keystroke.  i might even like to play it out of interest or as a hobby.  i might not care that i get 2TC for 1scBTC or vice versa.  i might accept the fact that the TC might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the TC offers.  you are such a lame brain that you still can't see this.  that ppl come in all shapes and varieties with different objectives, values and interest.  you're embarassing yourself with your black and white scenarios.

now answer my question.

[cypherdoc]

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

are you now unfair too?

[brg444]

b/c the answer is not an A or B, it's not a 0 or a 1, it's not true or false, it's not either or, it's not black or white.  ppl will make decisions based on shades of grey and everything in btwn.  just b/c you won't do it doesn't mean that millions of other ppl with different opinions, values, likes, dislikes, views on monetary theory WON'T DO IT.  there are plenty of speculators who will want access to prediction markets, just like keystroke.  i might even like to play it out of interest or as a hobby.  i might not care that i get 2 altcoins for 1 altcoin or vice versa.  i might accept the fact that the altcoin might be subject to inflate just so i have access to the new feature that the altcoin offers.  you are such a lame brain that you still can't see this.  that ppl come in all shapes and varieties with different objectives, values and interest.  you're embarassing yourself with your black and white scenarios.

now answer my question.

You still don't get it do you? It is altcoins you are afraid of, sidechains is not your enemy.

I'm done with you. You can consider this a win. You're just too dense and shallow for me to want to deal with your FUD and disingenous arguments anymore.

I don't want to make you look like more of a fool than you already have in your own thread. Enjoy you win. But remember, sidechain are not gonna go away. They are a good thing and will benefit Bitcoin much more than any of your scamcoins can hurt it.

Enjoy the longterm crow.

(btw you never answered my question)

[justusranvier]

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

are you now unfair too?

A clue, maybe?

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhphi2

Some people in the Bitcoin ecosystem push on ideas like red-listing which I think are very fundamentally anti-bitcoin, and every time that kind of stuff comes up I become ill thinking about all the political work that goes into protecting bitcoin as an autonomous trustless system.

I don't have any difficulty believing there's a lot of threats, bribes, plots, counter-plots, and general skulduggery going on behind the scenes, beginning at least as early as late 2012. Why wouldn't sidechains be part of that general trend?

[cypherdoc]

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else.  thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's:  gvt inflation for Bitcoin.

[brg444]

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else.  thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's:  gvt inflation for Bitcoin.

 

NotLambChop, is that you 

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny 

[cypherdoc]

why does Austin Hill want to allow gvts to start SC's for their currencies?  how is that not a problem for Bitcoin?

brg444, you are unfair on top of everything else.  thanks for hiding your true motives with SC's:  gvt inflation for Bitcoin.

 

NotLambChop, is that you 

you pathetic bait is not gonna work cypher. but keeping making yourself look like a clown with such idiotic statements. you're funny 

then answer the Q

[NewLiberty]

So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?

Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.

The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter.

What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated

Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve"

No demonstration is needed of this.
Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right?  By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg"  The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived.
Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there.
If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue.

[brg444]

So is there a peg or not?
Is it just "correlated" now?

Let's assume the SC has some feature or other, faster, more private, whatever it is doesn't matter, we can pick whichever one is most successful and has the most liquidity at the moment to take advantage of the time premium and do this.

The feature, increased utility or existing adoption do not matter.

What you need to demonstrate is how your "pump" increases the demand for this feature. I believe they are NOT at all correlated

Because remember, the prices are pegged, therefore one can ride your "pump" on BTC or scBTC. You cannot pump the adoption of your scBTC through speculation and the feature is already existent and does not "improve"

No demonstration is needed of this.
Demand for scBTC is unimportant to price if they are pegged, right?  By creating demand for BTC, scBTC price must also rise because of the "peg"  The confirmation time makes instant (exchange-traded) coins more valuable than SPV derived.
Just pick whichever scBTC is the most popular and go from there.
If there isn't sufficient exchange demand, then pick the 2nd most popular, and continue.

Demand for scBTC is absolutely important to your "pump & dump". You argue that you will be able to unload a bunch of scBTC to fiat. There needs to be an increase in demand for scBTC to do so.

Unlike with regular altcoins you cannot create "speculative" demand because the peg allows people to ride your "pump" holding BTC if they chose to do so. For that reason, the whole pump & dump scheme is ineffective.

In fact, if people prefer the "exchange-traded" version of scBTC then it is possible that this could work against your theory : people would no longer convert BTC to scBTC but buy the ones available on exchange.

Furthermore, the scenario is even less probable when we consider that fiat might become irrelevant with the rise of BTC.