Quote from: molecular on November 09, 2014, 05:25:52 AM

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

Quote from: brg444 on November 08, 2014, 08:51:11 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 08, 2014, 08:48:55 PM

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

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?

I have a question, too. It's not necessarily directed at cypher. It's an honest question and I assume its already answered in this thread.

Are you saying there's the danger of indirectly inflating the bitcoin monetary base through the application of 2-way-pegged sidechains and if so, can you point out the flaw in the following analogy:

The grownups have a party. It's all about a cake. A quarter of the precious cake is cut off and given to the little ones to play with. They make small cakes from the material, some in form of little kittens. They also throw it around a lot and maybe lose parts of it under the sofa or to the cat. They also mix part of the original stuff with more flower and eggs they find in the kitchen, also some frog shit.

Some of the kids decide they want to be part of "the big cake party" again and request re-integration of their little cake into the big one. The grownups look at the piece of cake offered and decide wether it consist purely of "the original stuff". If so the piece is reintegrated and the little one gets to be part of the real party again. If additional ingredients are detected, the piece is rejected or only partly accepted. Hence the grownup cake isn't being inflated.

Some of the kids lost all their little cakes and are shut out from the grownup party, because they have nothing valid to buy themselves back in. Some other kids managed to accumulate more than their original share of cake and managed to keep it uncontiminated. They play a bigger role in the grownup party now.i
In the end there's less grownup cake, because some ended up in the cats stomach and a lot got contaminated. The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more. Some of the grownups also lost cake to the cat and some lost it to their own stomachs, but that's another story.

So... stupid analogy? What am I missing?

Entertaining Cheesy

I think one thing that Cypher is worried about is that your cake party turns out to be unchaperoned. Several of the grownups see the little ones having so much fun making a creative mess with their cake that they all join in. Next thing you know it's a food fight, the cake ends up splattered on faces and across walls, that cat gets sick, and the few adults who kept their pieces pristine lose out because everyone else stumbles home never wanting cake again.

My hunch is that the people controlling the largest pieces of cake won't be taking any chances.