Quote from: cypherdoc on November 08, 2014, 09:24:22 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 08, 2014, 09:12:51 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 08, 2014, 09:06:23 PM

ok, let me ask you again. this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

Playing with words is not helping your argument.

"Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner.

"Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

trying to obfuscate by using the term "subledger" is playing with words. SC's are different ledgers with different security and economic assumptions and offerings. we've already agreed on this. you just forgot.

the gox analogy is not good b/c it involves a SC1 once removed from Bitcoin. in NL's example, he was talking about SC's/ledgers twice removed or more getting "decapitated" by SC1 malfeasance. we've never seen anything like that in Bitcoin; ever. it's a new risk.

No subledger is IMO a very appropriate term. SC's ledger being supported by monetary units derived from the main chain, it is only right to call them subledgers and not primary ledgers on their own right.

In NL's example, the risk is inherant to the corruption of SC1, so it does not matter if the coin is now on SC2-3-4-5. If these sit on top of SC1 then the root of the risk is on SC1, therefore, as I continue to try to explain to you, the risk is always reside in moving your coin off the mainchain to a malicious or corrupted subledger.

Coins stuck on SC2 or SC1 affect the user and Bitcoin in the same way so it is not a "new" risk to either of them