Quote from: tvbcof on August 23, 2015, 05:39:42 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 23, 2015, 10:50:30 AM

Stop talking gobbledygook.

Quote from: tvbcof on August 23, 2015, 04:07:48 AM

What's there to explain? A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg. The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain. There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'. There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc. This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"? But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions. If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'. It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.

You see, this is an example - "coherent in such topics" You may adopt a belief that is coherent, or you may be proficient in a topic, but Ive never seen them combined.
I find it makes more sense to more people to just used simple terms and language.

Quote from: tvbcof

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 23, 2015, 10:50:30 AM

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking. The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

Confusing to whom? I'm just being realistic. In the world of finance, bitcoin is a minnow, its growing ( but of course you will say not enough to justify simply making blocks bigger) but it is still small. The quantum leap suggested by blockstream includes handling payments in other currencies such as the dolllar.

Quote from: tvbcof

The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands. I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially. Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.

You havent answered anything there - just what you will do.

Quote from: tvbcof

Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively. I would expect them to do so indefinitely. Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use. Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts. In that case they would just choose something else.

Again, nothing new here. If you are big player in bitcoin, then you continue as before. But that is not who blockstrem are targeting. They are targeting current players in the traditional financial market.

Quote from: tvbcof

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 23, 2015, 10:50:30 AM

For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.' The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you. The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying. Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto. (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)

You quote my phrase "handover their private keys to them", but then you go off on a meandering narrative about " state sponsored judicial systems" and finance. Then you tell me "Crypto uses mathematics"? Blockstream because... trust. What about the bitcoins the sidechains are being pegged to? How is that achieved? How do you secure them without having access to the private keys?

Quote from: tvbcof

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 23, 2015, 10:50:30 AM

But its a moot point: This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain. Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms. To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action. We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now. Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.

XT is not an attack on Bitcoin. It is simply a different, more pragmatic view of how bitcoin can evolve over time. It seems to me that the Blockstream narrative effectively writes off bitcoin as a payment system as unfit for purpose. Everything blockstream espouses is predicated on a fundamental change to what bitcoin is and how it will work in the future. The paradox in your statement above is that you believe bitcoin will be the largest payment system in the world, but you cant even allow it to expand to serve its small but growing current userbase.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts). Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.