Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping.  he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk.  he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.

i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.

I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.

don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.

the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this  BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC.  as if that makes a difference    but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example.  anyone know?

and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.

[NewLiberty]

in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping.  he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk.  he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.

i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.

I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.

don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.

the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this  BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC.  as if that makes a difference    but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example.  anyone know?

and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

[NewLiberty]

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.

don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.

Oh yes, (developer + miner) integrity is needed.
And there are a bajillion possible scams with new block chains, we've seen a lot of those in alt-land, but the ratio is immaterial to that.

So... no reason it can't be 1BTC:100scBTC on the way in and 100scBTC:1BTC on the return.

[sickpig]

How much did David Chaum have solved at Digicash/eCash?

Some of the notes on the relevant wikipedia pages suggest he had double-spending solved:

...
Depending on the payment transactions, one distinguishes between on-line and off-line electronic cash: If the payee has to contact a third party (e.g., the bank or the credit-card company acting as an acquirer) before accepting a payment, the system is called an on-line system.[2] In 1990, Chaum together with Naor proposed the first off-line e-cash system, which was also based on blind signatures.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash

In 1988, he extended this idea (with Amos Fiat and Moni Naor) to prevent double-spending.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum

Anyone have any more info on this? Was eCash's remaining problem merely initial-coin distribution, or was BGP actually not (practically) 'solved' despite the above?

I moved the question and my comments on it into another thread in dev/tech section https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=856069.msg9526439#msg9526439 as its not really to do with speculation nor gold, though an interesting question!

Adam

so you've been snooping on our sidechains debate all along heh 

Adam already posted here on nov the 1st:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9405925#msg9405925

he had tried to clarify some aspect of the sidechains concept (2wp, atomic swaps, etc. etc). But maybe you and cypher were to busy arguing about sc effect on bitcoin economy :-)

[Fabrizio89]

And again gold is going down suffering from the strong us dollar, while Bitcoin shows it doesn't care at all and just wants to go its way. The next year will be very interesting, and I'm confident I did a good thing by still not buying gold.

[sickpig]

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?

Yes.

Most people use 1:1 ratio whe explaining sc just for the simplicity of it.

[cbeast]

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?

Yes.

Most people use 1:1 ratio whe explaining sc just for the simplicity of it.

1:1 means you get the same amount of bitcoins out as you put in for the same amount of SC. It means the SC doesn't inflate in relation BTC.

[sickpig]

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?

Yes.

Most people use 1:1 ratio whe explaining sc just for the simplicity of it.

1:1 means you get the same amount of bitcoins out as you put in for the same amount of SC. It means the SC doesn't inflate in relation BTC.

Could you please explain to me why a fixed/time invariant 1:n ratio should inflate the native sidechain coin(1)? (serious question)

(1) I'm taking into consideration only sidechain where there's no other way to "introduce" sc coins rather than  2wp or atomic swaps (aka no coin rewards for new mined block only txs fee)

[cypherdoc]

in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping.  he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk.  he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.

i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.

I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.

don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.

the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this  BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC.  as if that makes a difference    but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example.  anyone know?

and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

[NewLiberty]

in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping.  he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk.  he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.

i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.

I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted

I don't get the 1:1 thing.  It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.

don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.

the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this  BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC.  as if that makes a difference    but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example.  anyone know?

and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

That nomenclature is going to be new to them unless they read it here like you suggested to them, so their confusion is understandable.  
They are likely just thinking of it in terms of just the Bitcoin block chain and the Truthcoin block chain with the convertible asset created by the locking of the bitcoin being the CC.
The nomenclature we are using here is a bit unusual.  (we use MC for main chain, block stream uses "parent chain" and "child chain" or "sidechain").

The blockstream paper considers the sidechain as "also Bitcoin" which seems a bit disingenuous to me.  

Generally we can think of the parent chain as being Bitcoin and the sidechain as one of many other blockchains. Of course, sidechain coins could be transferred between sidechains, not just to and from Bitcoin; however, since any coin originally moved from Bitcoin could be moved back, it would nonetheless remain a bitcoin.

I don't favor much of the language used in their paper.  ("peg" being another example, but that is an old battle lost long ago)

This 1:1 peg being used to mean "a static conversion rate at any ratio" also seems bizarre in that it includes a 1:10 with 10:1 return rate?  

[brg444]

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?
[/quote]

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

[cypherdoc]

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.
[/quote]

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  

[cypherdoc]

Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.

I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.

i just want to make another point here.  the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself.  OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer.  for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk.

[brg444]

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  
[/quote]

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..

[cypherdoc]

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..
[/quote]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

[brg444]

Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.

I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.

i just want to make another point here.  the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself.  OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer.  for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk.

Not required, maybe. Expected? certainly.

The point is people can now choose between transparent and opaque systeme without any tradeoff in feature.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the majority will willingly transfer their wealth to a system that essentially recreates the closed, centralized financial institutions/services that the openness of the blockchain as made irrelevant.

[cypherdoc]

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

[brg444]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

[brg444]

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

Positive economic effect.

Irrelevant politically. Are politicians getting after TCP/IP because of Silk Road?

Comeon now, you know well we are creating the internet of value here.Like the internet politicians will quickly realize they are powerless in the face of innovations built on top of the Bitcoin protocol.

[cypherdoc]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.