For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.
Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain. If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand. This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy. Miners must mine where ever the value is, it's not about where they get there revenue it's about how they get there Bitcoin, that is what protects the Bitcoin network. SC's alow new mining incentives off the Bitcoin blockchain, transaction fees are inconsequential at the moment, but are intended to reduce to the marginal cost to secure the network in time. Is this scenario possible, where miners by charging higher fees on the Bitcoin Blockchain, encourage users to use a better SideChaine for faster more cost effective transactions? When that is 100% impossible my concerns will be put to rest. And Kevin Dowd can eat humble pie. What incentive is there for the miners to encourage users to use a different chain for transactions? Serious question. |
|
|
|
If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.
E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.
Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?
For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction. Sidechains do not generate more demand for transactions, they simply accomodate those transactions so that they can be held on-chain. It appears you suggest it is better for transactions to occur off-chain? That miners incentive should be limited to only what can be accomodated on the mainchain? What ratio do you propose should be held on/off so as to not allow miners to "insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop". |
|
|
|
You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.
hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt. also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also. but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book. I can recognize this. But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character. These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin. I think that deserves some respect you're continuing to use selective memory loss. if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread. i'm not sure about Austin's. the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's. you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success. this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code. this was all in reference to you stupid "devs gon devs" meme. Austin founded Zero Knowledge Systems in 1997. If you want to debate vision. This guy has loads of it. |
|
|
|
I was referring to Bitcoin's white paper, not Sidechains'. You know, the one were Adam Back is credited with developing the proof-of-work system that Bitcoin runs under. Adam Back figured that proof of work could be useful and but where it could most usefully be employed. He deserves credit for what he accomplished, and that credit in no way absolves him of proving his case in future endeavours. Adam Back has to show his work, just like anybody else. Even Satoshi would be in that same category. Past returns are not a guarantee of future results. And they absolutely plan to show it. I simply have some issues seeing people's reputation be ignorantly attacked when they are in part responsible for the existence of Bitcoin or have contributed to the technology and movement that spawned Bitcoin before most of us here even considered it possible or desirable |
|
|
|
You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.
hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt. also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also. but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book. I can recognize this. But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character. These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin. I think that deserves some respect |
|
|
|
where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98? my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold. hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin. which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs. we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.
now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world. the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.
and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.
Oh please.  You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success. I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though. you make it sound as if Adam and Austin are crucial for Bitcoins future success. (they aren't) why would i want to put my name on a paper with a flawed assumption? I would bet they will be largely more relevant to the future of Bitcoin than you are. I was referring to Bitcoin's white paper, not Sidechains'. You know, the one were Adam Back is credited with developing the proof-of-work system that Bitcoin runs under. |
|
|
|
More good stuff from Back : "There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.
The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development. Hill "The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin" bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right? where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98? my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold. hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin. which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs. we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise. now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world. the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts. and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today. With ZB we're now up to at least 5 people who have debunked that claim of yours. Maybe you'd like to work on your arguments. |
|
|
|
where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98? my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold. hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin. which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs. we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.
now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world. the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.
and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.
Oh please. You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success. I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though. At the end of the day, these guys will be responsible for having develop technology that fosters innovations and the creation of companies, industries around Bitcoin while you'll remain cypherdoc, a username with a popular thread on a forum. |
|
|
|
What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.
its a open source path, once taken could lead to the dark side, and with out the right incentive structure in place may be impossible to turn back. I'm of the opinion that different incentive model is better than lost incentives |
|
|
|
More good stuff from Back : "There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.
The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development. Hill "The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin" bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right? |
|
|
|
the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.
And what if they step down? Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin? You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it. Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is. You sound like an insider. Tell us more.  Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin. feel it heh  there's a post for you up top btw |
|
|
|
the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.
And what if they step down? Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin? You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it. Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is. You sound like an insider. Tell us more. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.
And what if they step down? Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin? You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it. Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. |
|
|
|
these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors. to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money. in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation.
I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind. The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years. You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ? Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them? For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world. Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source. Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich. As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs". They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core. Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency. Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream. These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors." In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind. I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model. What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop. If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary. By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations. SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way. Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy. Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best. If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency. No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC). |
|
|
|
You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.
Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.
if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp. But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear. There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment. SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly but you can't stop all stupid ppl like Odalv from doing stupid things. better to let them lose money on those federated servers. don't want to pollute the protocol with spvp and institutionalize stupidity. Odalv sounds pretty smart if you ask me. It is not pollution it is balance. Stupid people already have plenty of schemes they can use. SPVP does little to improve their scam ambitions. On the other hand, SPVP allows for arguably the most secure use of BTC outside the mainchain that is technically possible |
|
|
|
You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.
Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.
if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp. But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear. There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment. SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly |
|
|
|
A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money
i strongly disagree with this. there is no greater network effect than money. nor one greater to disrupt. THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies. it is all about fiat money corruption. in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform. much like WoW. i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever. these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets. this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function. all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario. with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function. all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game: The Money Game on a world stage. there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game. why do you wish to shoot so low? https://i.imgur.com/TFahTPe.pngthey are the same proposition. if you read the original link, you would be able to infer that sound money, Bitcoin as you know it is the only way to achieve Universal Exchange. The author has painted a picture where your bitcoins are invisible, the idea is more like an Austrian barter Zeitgeist Universal exchange run on sound money. and yes SC are a threat to that vision.
How so? It seems to me they are exactly what we need to realise it. You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network. Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done. |
|
|
|
A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money
i strongly disagree with this. there is no greater network effect than money. nor one greater to disrupt. THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies. it is all about fiat money corruption. in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform. much like WoW. i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever. these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets. this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function. all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario. with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function. all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game: The Money Game on a world stage. there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game. why do you wish to shoot so low?  it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts. |
|
|
|
...
With altcoins we have that fear. But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.
...
Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here? Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin. It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment. I hope that's right.
For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.
You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect. * "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.
There is no plausable reason to install such a cap. Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted. I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy. Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating. May the best coin win! |
|
|
|
you're a legend in your own mind.
and you're a fraud in your own thread i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right? You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown. well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money. A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money But, note that on a Universal Exchange, the barriers to trading in-kind fall dramatically. On a Universal Exchange I could just as easily swap stock for a car as I could stock for stock. Or real estate for stock as easily real estate for real estate. On a Universal Exchange, everything becomes readily tradable with everything else!
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.
...
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. http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
