Quote from: rocks on November 06, 2014, 05:29:27 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 06, 2014, 09:55:39 AM

Quote from: rocks on November 06, 2014, 04:19:29 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 06, 2014, 03:51:03 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 06, 2014, 03:39:53 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 06, 2014, 02:52:04 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 06, 2014, 02:41:24 AM

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, heres why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.

"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

There is one Bitcoin ledger. There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head. Wink

I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.