It becomes clearer everyday that you either insist on ignoring facts or simply do not understand the dynamics at stake.
we have achieved acceptance as a global, digital, cash money system that, imo, is in the process of replacing gold's function for the last 5000 yrs. to me, an Austrian leaning Bitcoin proponent, that's all we should strive to be. that's all we need to be. my goal is to have Bitcoin have its own ticker symbol on the Forex exchange. from there, as the only true Sound Money in the world, it can consume all fiat currency AND gold, which will take us To The Moon and way beyond as the sole globally accepted currency.
merely replacing gold is a very shortsighted view that ignores the limitless innovations & true paradigm shift that the creation of an immutable, global, distributed ledger entail. I understand the idea to redefine the concept of money and its applications is a very powerful one by itself but the blockchain should not limit itself to money. Value, property & trade is what we are looking to decentralize. This concept has much greater implications than even money.
to limit the blockchain to money implies that the need for trust in incumbent counterparties for anything but money is not significantly limited although we have a technology that absolutely can do that.
So, for the first time in history, we (or those of us with signing authority, at least) can now directly control what gets entered on an exchange's (and, in this case, a Universal Exchange's) books and records on our behalf. We don't need anyone's permission to make an entry, nobody can bar us from entering a transaction on the exchange (though the system itself will prevent it if we don't have signing authority), and nobody can reverse or corrupt an entry once made.
...
In short, in a world with a Universal Exchange, the need for trust in humans (be they counter-parties, third parties, auditors, or regulators) is significantly diminished. Not eliminated, but greatly lessened.
In short, bitcoins are valuable not because you can trade things for them (as money), but rather because you can trade things with (via) them by simply entering a transaction into the Universal Exchange. Thus, bitcoins are not (yet) the medium of exchange, they are the method by which things are exchanged in exchange for the medium of exchange. Or, at least they will be once the Bitcoin infrastructure is more built out and widely known.
Bitcoins thus have value as a method for avoiding or diminishing the need for trust, and the expensive infrastructure built up to instill it, and not merely a collectible or as money. Trust is valuable, and few things are more demonstrably trustworthy than a public blockchain
Sidecoins are, in a way, our best chance of fulfilling these promises of the blockchain.
the Keynesian view is that Bitcoin needs to do more to gain acceptance and grow itself. the protocol needs to be changed to incorporate all other forms of asset options; stocks, bonds, assurance contracts, smart contracts, insurance, etc. nevermind that if Bitcoin succeeds at the Austrian Sound Money function, it will force all those assets to trade in terms of Bitcoin eventually as well.
This is absolutely not a debate of Keynesian vs. Austrian. How do you propose we trade assets in terms of Bitcoin if they are not represented by units in the ledger? Remember that this scheme can only be implemented off the mainchain for obvious reason.
What you seem to suggest is that those "off-chain" applications be conceded to the trust of third-parties which defeats the very purpose of the blockchain. The blockchain is where all trust reside and where all forms of value should be exchanged. Granted it may not be practical to do that or even desirable in some cases but we should absolutely expect this level of decentralization in a majority of our exchange.
they try to change Bitcoin. change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function. to me, that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.
I sure hope Satoshi is not reading that. The nature of Bitcoin is open-source code, to suggest changing its source code is not desirable or should not be pursued goes against any conceivable logic.
Off-ramps a a reality of Bitcoin and exist already in numerous forms. We absolutely need off-ramps to scale the system and make it possible to reach mainstream adoption. For those of us who understand the implications, it is quite clear that sidechains are potentially the most secure and natural off-ramp possible. It offers the unique chance to preserve the integrity of the ledger and protect the Sound Money aspect of Bitcoin on the
protocol level.
so what is wrong with using SC's to incorporate all those assets? it breaks the Sound Money function.
This comment in itself is so naive and ignorant of our present reality I'm not even sure where to begin... The desire to represent these assets in BTC and the demand for such applications has been crystal clear for everyone who has been paying attention. It is the sole reason why Bitcoin 2.0 projects exist. The problem with most Bitcoin 2.0 projects is that they introduce in the majority of cases an additional third-party that demands an increased level of trust. These third-parties are by all chances, the most dangerous risk to the Sound Money function.
Bitcoin will no longer be viewed as solely a new form of money. it will be viewed as a "trading platform" with which you can use to move back and forth btwn assets and BTC. it would be like a Fidelity brokerage house, you deposit your money in a cash acct and then trade all manner of assets in and out. it also destroys the time preference of what money should be. you see, stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc are long term investments. they are to be held. and they are not used to provide seamless, instant, liquidity type functions like Bitcoin would be if it stays in its current form as sound money.
Aside from some erroneous details or assumptions this is EXACTLY what we should aspire Bitcoin to become. THE Universal Exchange by which ANY trade is facilitated.
And this is especially true with the tool that makes all that possible, bitcoins themselves. Since bitcoins represent the universal, inalienable (though transferable) right to enter a transaction, any transaction, into the Universal Exchange, and since bitcoins themselves are readily tradable on the exchange itself, an exponentially increasing number of things will come to be bought and sold for bitcoins, and not just with (that is, via) them.
You can call such trading of good and services for bitcoins "barter" if you want (so that you don't have to acknowledge bitcoins as "real" money or currency), but the result is the same either way. They will be used to purchase goods and services regularly on the Universal Exchange.
In short, a Universal Exchange will facilitate a barter economy like the world has never seen. For the first time, barter transactions will be nearly as easy as cash transactions (and in many cases even easier). This will have a great many revolutionary impacts. It will impact "trusted" third parties the most and soonest, but it will also impact governments, human relationships, law, accounting, economics, and a great many other fields. And, perhaps most of all, it may just eventually make the whole concept of "money" unnecessary and obsolete. With a Universal Exchange, a common currency, in the traditional sense of the word, isn't hardly necessary.
thus, we many NEVER see those assets be converted back to BTC in the future. or at least if we do, it won't be for a long time, and then what does that do for Bitcoins money function? answer: it slows it down if not outright destroys it. if that's true, where do Bitcoin miners get the tx fees they desperately need in the future to secure the mainchain?
They get it from MM the sidechains. The alternative you propose (off-chain/federated solutions) is provably worse in this scenario because it effectively strips from the miners the power or access to claim these tx fees.
they would have to stay as SC's and i dare say there mere existence destroys Bitcoins liquidity and money function.
What you constantly fail to realize is that if this demand is not fulfilled by SC's it will be through other schemes that are necessarily more dangerous to Bitcoins liquidity and money function.
