in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted
I don't get the 1:1 thing. It doesn't really matter what the ratio is, so long as it is a ratio that is communicated clearly and is not alterable, yes?
It could be 1:100, 1:2, or 10:1, and when you return to the MC it reverses.
don't know but i suppose he could change it and trap ppl inside.
the other thing he was making a big deal about is that he insists the transfer goes like this BTC-->CC as opposed to BTC-->scBTC-->CC. as if that makes a difference
but from a technical standpoint, i think it was notme who said there had to be essentially 2 tx's to accomplish the transformation to a new coin as in the latter example. anyone know?and as far as TC is concerned, it's not so much about the it being an altcoin, it's about the fact that most of the assets offered are speculative and subject to losses.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?