Quote from: cypherdoc on March 17, 2015, 01:24:55 AM

Quote from: smooth on March 17, 2015, 01:11:02 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 17, 2015, 12:55:01 AM

that strategy of buying both chains means they will lose money at some level when the dominant chain eventually wins.

Look at it not as individual assets but as a global ledger. If the global ledger represented by the combination of both (temporarily viable) chains, then if you buy say 1% of both chains, and one chain dies (goes to zero), you still own 1% of the global ledger. Any value that disappears from your coins on the losing chain would be redistributed to your coins on the winning chain.

I'll comment on the other points later, kind of busy now.

maybe.

lots of moving parts in that one that could invalidate the assumption. for starters, constant forking like i've described could decrease the value of the entire network from the getgo.

Yes I agree if done in poorly conceived and chaotic manner it would be destructive. Zangelbert Bingledack's original message indicated that exchanges would need to be set up to handle this properly in order to treat forks as a market question. Likewise wallets, etc. It is a significant undertaking, but in many ways likely less challenging, less complicated, and possibly with less risk of people losing money, than side chains.

More later.