Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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  

answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

[1714009538]

1714009538

[1714009538]

1714009538

[1714009538]

1714009538

[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  

answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

 

[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  

answer the question, you little piece of shit.  who are you anyway?  who hired you?  

brg444 refusing to answer and hiding

fine, i'll make it bigger.

[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.

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.

I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then.
The pump is a BTC pump.  The scBTC moves because of the "peg".

Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure).  The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg".

There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).

It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises.

[Adrian-x]

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.

It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

[brg444]

It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

I have adressed your conclusions in this post

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".

[Adrian-x]

^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.

I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far.

[brg444]

I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then.
The pump is a BTC pump.  The scBTC moves because of the "peg".

Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure).  The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg".

There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).

It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises.

That doesn't make any sense.

There is only so much demand for scBTC. This demand does not change whether people get them through exchange or SPVing.

For more BTC to move into various scBTC there needs to be more demand for them. Simple economics.

People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate :

scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC.

Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV.

No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism.

The amount of coins sitting on a sidechain is proportionate to the amount of users willing to use it. Your "pump & dump" scheme, if we can even call it that, has no incidence on this demand.

[brg444]

^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.

I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far.

I couldn't resist the cypherdoc bait. I'm sorry

I'm done now, I promise. No more feeding the troll.

I'll gladly entertain arguments with you gentlemen but this cypherdoc.. he's so dishonest and desperate  .. I cannot stand him anymore

[Adrian-x]

It would be nice if you acknowledged what effects this would have on Bitcoin.

I have adressed your conclusions in this post

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".

I've addressed all the reasons for my conclusions. Unfortunately they've been berried in over 200 pages of misdirection and personal attacks.

My understanding has solidified over the week, the effects will be slow than I originally thought and Bitcoins long term potential diminished. There will be inflationary effects in the SC and an undermining effects on security.

I'm a little disappointed but that's life. I'll be fine but I'm thinking if Bitcoin doesn't go mainstream before the proposed protocol change. It may fizzle as the FUD takes over towards the end of the next decade.

[cypherdoc]

^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.

I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far.

I couldn't resist the cypherdoc bait. I'm sorry

I'm done now, I promise. No more feeding the troll.

I'll gladly entertain arguments with you gentlemen but this cypherdoc.. he's so dishonest and desperate  .. I cannot stand him anymore

and you're still a little POS who won't answer the question b/c you're so dishonest and deceptive:

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

[brg444]

I've addressed all the reasons for my conclusions. Unfortunately they've been berried in over 200 pages of misdirection and personal attacks.

My understanding has solidified, over the week the effects will be slow than I originally thought and Bitcoins long term potential diminished. There will be inflationary effects in the SC and an undermining effects on security.

I'm a little disappointed but that's life. I'll be fine but I'm thinking if Bitcoin doesn't go mainstream before the proposed protocol change. It may fizzle as the FUD takes over towards the end of the next decade.

I have read all of them. But I disagree, my last post was an attempt at arguing some of your premises. Would you care adressing my counter-arguments? If not it's all good  You are right that we've dragged this on too long

[Adrian-x]

... You should be ashamed of such deception.

your argument is GOVcoin, with inflationary features and corporate sponsors will kill Bitcoin?
may the best man win.

[Adrian-x]

I have read all of them. But I disagree, my last post was an attempt at arguing some of your premises. Would you care adressing my counter-arguments? If not it's all good  You are right that we've dragged this on too long

I'd feel it was worth my time if you had an open mind.
If you're up to it please do go through my post history and respond appropriately to the question and inputs  that have been overlooked.

[brg444]

People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate :

scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC.

Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV.

No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism.

I should add to that : your movement of BTC to scBTC is offset by regular scBTC users buying from you instead of acquiring the scBTC through SPVing.

Demand is simply fulfilled through a different channel. Your "speculative attack" does not increase the amount of BTC on the sidechain

[NewLiberty]

I'm not sure I explained the mechanism well enough then.
The pump is a BTC pump.  The scBTC moves because of the "peg".

Demand for any particular scBTC doesn't matter, all that matters is that there are some scBTC with some demand (if there aren't then SC are pretty much a failure).  The rest is simple economics and human greed, so long as there is this "peg".

There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).

It gets compounded as increasingly more BTC move into various scBTC and liquidity diminishes as price rises.

That doesn't make any sense.

There is only so much demand for scBTC. This demand does not change whether people get them through exchange or SPVing.

For more BTC to move into various scBTC there needs to be more demand for them. Simple economics.

People are not gonna buy scBTC on exchanges for the hell of it. To better illustrate :

scBTC-fan wants to get 5 scBTC.

Either he buys your 5 scBTC directly through an exchange or he buys BTC and locks them in the chain with SPV.

No matter the method used only 5 BTC are transferred to the sidechain. No more. Your intermediate sale of scBTC through exchange does not increase the demand. There is not more users willing to buy through exchange than there are willing to use the coin through regular BTC > scBTC mechanism.

The amount of coins sitting on a sidechain is proportionate to the amount of users willing to use it. Your "pump & dump" scheme, if we can even call it that, has no incidence on this demand.

The demand is supported by the "peg".
There is a profitable trade, people will buy.
If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC?
It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature.  The feature matters less than the prices.

The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds....  or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might).

[brg444]

The demand is supported by the "peg".
There is a profitable trade, people will buy.
If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC?
It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature.  The feature matters less than the prices.

The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds....  or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might).

I fail to see what the profitable trade is.

You said BTC price rises faster than scBTC so one would think people would want to buy scBTC at discount but then you say that scBTC is actually going for a premium because of convenience to avoid SPV confirmations.

There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).

Which is it  

If BTC price rises faster and you are holding scBTC why sell scBTC at discount to exchange buyers when you can use the peg to claim equal value to BTC?

Otherwise it sounds to me like you are describing a regular arbitrage type play. Something only speculators would take part in and I honestly don't see how this can scale to the extent that BTC would lose significant liquidity.

How do you describe it "unwinding". How does those waiting on confirmation lose?

[Odalv]

^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.

I for one would appreciate it if you could do a little better. Your best is dragging this out a little two far.

I couldn't resist the cypherdoc bait. I'm sorry

I'm done now, I promise. No more feeding the troll.

I'll gladly entertain arguments with you gentlemen but this cypherdoc.. he's so dishonest and desperate  .. I cannot stand him anymore

and you're still a little POS who won't answer the question b/c you're so dishonest and deceptive:

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

lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
 - fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
 - you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet,  you only have exchangeBTC
 - scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be  GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
  

[brg444]

lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
 - fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
 - you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet,  you only have exchangeBTC
 - scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be  GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
 

surely you mean the other way around right?

[brg444]

 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

I assume you mean Austin Hill will not "enable" gvts to start fiat-SC's

Cypher doesn't realise that altcoins exist already. Don't spoil the surprise.