Quote from: smooth on April 09, 2015, 07:57:24 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on April 09, 2015, 07:07:39 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 09, 2015, 04:31:40 AM

Quote from: rocks on April 09, 2015, 03:47:55 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on April 09, 2015, 02:21:37 AM

In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.

So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.

That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks

so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea: we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least. but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to!

In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around.

Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be.

The value of the currency unit is not lost but the value of the "system" consisting of the main chain plus the currency unit may be degraded if an alternative chain becomes dominant. The main chain would exist only for the purposes of mining distribution, and then once distribution is negligible or complete, not at all.

I see nothing particularly wrong with this, as it is an "upgrade path" but I think cypherdoc sees it as dilutive of the original Bitcoin system (which he would rather see improved-in-place rather than replaced).

People look at things the wrong way. Let's use a real-world example to show it:

Gold was a form of money. Silver was its lesser counterpart.
Fiat was created, based on gold. Now fiat is the main currency, while gold/silver are investment vehicles.

All of these have value. They are all convertible between one another. Just because fiat took over doesn't mean the others were destroyed/worthless.

I think BTC is the same way. I have very little doubts that it will be taken over by other currencies. But I think it will remain a main investment vehicle and therefore still have its use/value. It just won't be what we use for day-to-day transacting.