Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 10:26:46 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 20, 2014, 10:18:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 10:12:40 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 20, 2014, 09:56:10 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 20, 2014, 08:05:42 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 07:52:15 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on November 20, 2014, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 07:18:30 PM

yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".

I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks).

i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.

Quote

As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.

maybe.

i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link.

It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you.

Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)

i did? where?

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 12:17:07 AM

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now. but i should reserve judgment until there's more info. if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy. Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!

who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!

they are