Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

a single Blockchain is a single point of failure.

The problem from an investment perspective is that this requires active asset management, and if I choose the wrong chain to allocate some of my wealth to I lose when it fails (assuming the 2wp is also lost). I like spin-offs because if you have a 1% stake in the ledger now, you have a 1% stake in all the spin-offs as well (assuming spin-offs have the same inflation schedule as Bitcoin) by default, without having to do anything. No matter what chains win, your stake in the ledger is always and automatically preserved. With sidechains, you have to be a masterful investor to ensure net zero change to your stake in the total operational ledger.

spin-offs is inflationary (you have N x amount)  but SC is not inflationary b/c you CAN use BTC only in 1 chain at the same time.

[Adrian-x]

Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name  
I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed.

My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.

I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.

 

What's confusing? Just look at the market price it was stupid to sell. Hindsight is 20:20,
I'm more referring to the Altcoin proponents that drink there own koolaid. And cash out there Bitcoin.

[brg444]

Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name  
I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed.

My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.

I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.

 

What's confusing? Just look at the market price it was stupid to sell. Hindsight is 20:20,
I'm more referring to the Altcoin proponents that drink there own koolaid. And cash out there Bitcoin.

Sure   I think maybe you got just a little  drunk on your own "sidechains doomsday" koolaid

[Adrian-x]

I'm a greedy miner too.  Miners have it easy for the next 6 years, there after if they charge high fees they devalue the network if the value of the network drops the status quo change if they don't adapt it degrades it will keep changing until the status quo brings new actors.

It's actually greed that will prevent degeneration, miners who scoop up the transaction fees that are equal to the marginal cost will out compete there competitors. At every halving there will be a disruption and miners will start a new competitive race to discover the marginal cost of business.

SC running on the Bitcoin protocol using SPV proofs change this incentive, this is why I'm skeptical.

I don't have the answers but again this is one concern of mine, I would be able to afford the transaction fees and utilize the network but of course their will be times that a internal wallet service like Coinbase will be used just for convenience.

I am worried about someone like this being able to use BTC in the future without a service like this - http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/kim-kardashian-paper-cover.jpg?w=814 - which is already changing the landscape.

immigrating to this new world will be hard, there are hostile tribes and wild animals with skeletons that look like dragons. 
weather we get there on the Bitcoin boat is still not guaranteed.

but we plug along concerns and all. I dont know but I've bought a ticket.

[Odalv]

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

Edit:
It is obvious, that SC will end up his pump and dump alt-business. He will do everything to keep gaining profit. "In the name of Bitcoin"

[Adrian-x]

Sure   I think maybe you got just a little  drunk on your own "sidechains doomsday" koolaid

Sure  I may have overacted, in selling, but by page 5, I was convinced it could do what it said on the box.
in retrospect, it has to be implemented first before it can do what it said on the box.

[cypherdoc]

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

and who's looking to capitalize on SC's?  oh, you!:

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!

[Odalv]

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

[Melbustus]

Looks like Juan Llanos of BitReserve is losing sight of things: https://bitreserve.org/en/blog/posts/about-bitreserve/with-your-right-hand-on-your-heart-a-recap-of-money20-20-2014 Shame...

[cypherdoc]

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

[brg444]

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees.  but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side.  these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever.  in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it.  the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV.  i know i do.  the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon.  that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that.  it is a money thing.  i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky.  and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.  

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did?  where?

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain. 

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

they are

[cypherdoc]

here's the part i would focus on.  it shows i've had problems with SC's from the beginning.  it didn't start with Blockstream:

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now.  but i should reserve judgment until there's more info.  if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy.  Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack.  this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

[Odalv]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

[brg444]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 

this is too good.

[Adrian-x]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

[brg444]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

[cypherdoc]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

 

this is too good.

the only thing too much here is your desperation to character assassinate.

[cypherdoc]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

[Adrian-x]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

it seems to me if you make a spin-off that expanded the moneyless 2x with no innovation it'll be deleted in minus and the money supply will balance out at 1x. 2 seconds later.

if it survives, its market cap will be the values the free market gives the innovation. the two market caps combined create a greater whole.  

[Odalv]

oh wow!  i'm guilty of inflation!  lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's?  you?  lol!

Yes I said and I can repeat
 - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people))
 - "spin-offs" inflates money.

spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud.
the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation.

It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased.

but so are holders holdings.  net effect, zero.

"net effect, zero." =>  
 a) cypherdoc managed to scam $100,000 USD
 b) some newbies lost $100,000 USD
 => $0 USD