I would 100% support bitassets being backed by BTC (assuming sidechains are legit). BitShares is a platform that goes far beyond bitassets and this would be a great way to partner with another crypto and leverage their network effect. We would both win if this were implemented.
Sidechains likely are legit...which means that there really is no reason to worry on that front. But the real question is...how does this help us? And can it benefit us in a way that we wouldnt already see if we had patience and persistence?
We are tying ourselves into a market that actually is not free. Bitcoin has many backers...ironically one of which seems to be the CFR. For those who know about the CFR, this should be a concern...because if they want bitcoin...it means it is precisely the technocrat's dream device for tracking every interaction we ever have. In fact nearly all the big names in "journalism" out there these days are actually members of the CFR as well. If we think these people are not connected with the same kingpins in charge today...we are blinding ourselves unnecessarily to facts.
I see no reason to back bitassets directly with bitcoin...or to even open up that Avenue because then we are opening the floodgates for a stealth attack that steals our tech and moves it to bitcoin with little repayment to our community (what happens to the BTS you each hold if the mining and banking cartels inject huge funds into btc-backed bitassets???).
Just like data said...we CAN back them with bitcoi INTERNALLY and still keep control over what we ALL have fought so hard to make thrive! Don't forget everyone... bitBTC can back bitassets to now with the bitassets 2.0 proposal.
Actually fuzzy, what I imagined was a BTC-backed token existing on our block-chain, and using that as the collateral, rather than BTC directly. So the control, issuance and settlement features would never leave the domain of bitShares, although it could trade freely externally like any other bitAsset. I introduced this idea here, and expanded it to looking at using such a token for collateral in this thread...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15957.0.htmlWhy you might do this rather than using bitBTC backed by BTS is for the reasons I listed earlier in this thread. But like I said earlier, I would prefer the ability to have a collateral mix rather than just BTC, another advantage being less chance of black swans.
I think ultimately something like this will be done if it can be done. Down the track there is no reason why collateral can't just be plug-and-play - insert whatever token or mix of tokens you want. So maybe we are only left to debate how much support we might wish to give it
when it happens. Personally I think its better to have the bitShares technology at the centre of it and controlling it, and earning reward and brand recognition for the community, rather than left out of it. But it will be interesting to see how things evolve and what we all think at that point.
I would 100% support bitassets being backed by BTC (assuming sidechains are legit). BitShares is a platform that goes far beyond bitassets and this would be a great way to partner with another crypto and leverage their network effect. We would both win if this were implemented.
Hmm...I'm failing to see how we would both win in this scenario. Literally what value would BTS have if it wasn't backing bitassets? Sounds to me like it would have a quick drop to zero, while bitcoin reaps all the hard work of the BTS devs...
Am I missing something?
The point you raise is that we need to be much clearer on the value model for BTS. If its only value is in backing bitAssets, and bitAssets don't require BTS backing, then we are lost...
(BTW I think we are far from lost, just highlighting the need to explore the bigger picture on what BTS can be).