I think you severely, severely underestimate the power of the financial-governmental complex. As long as the kids are playing in the park, they'll let you do. Once you are threatening their lucrative business of pumping productivity of the economy in the hands of their elite, all means are good to kill you. Wars have been fought over much less.
You think the old-boys networks of banksters and government are going to let this happen ? I think when this is the only arguments doubters can come up with then half of the battle is won. The fact is bitcoin is an internet protocol, they can only hope to slow it down for so long until the masses unanimously reject their worthless fiat. The banksters have their own economic crisis to worry about anyway. .... as long as the banks and mobsters allow you to !
I see you've ran out of attempts at reasonable argumentation. That's okay. Most technology adoption didn't have a flame-throwing dragon the size of US government and the banking sector fighting for its privileges in front of him :-) They are well on their way to lose this privilege by their own action so Bitcoin is the lubricant that will ease and hasten the transition. |
|
|
|
...
It is too late for the US government to jump it. Bitcoin is now an industry in the US and they will face a colossal fuck up if they even attempt to squash it for what would be very anti-constitutional reasons... >a few bil. $$$ market cap >most businesses located outside of US An industry  And since when did US gubermint lackeys care about constitutionality, hmm? Oh sorry, I forgot to include the usual "Lambroll, fuck off" advertisement. |
|
|
|
Yes. It is very clear to everyone that implementing an OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY into the Bitcoin protocol is good for Blockstream, and good for the Side Chains.
It is less clear that it is good for the Bitcoin protocol.
Then when "but we can do everything with federation and oracle already today, so we should just do it" is added to the argument, it makes anyone with a wary eye look at this as if it were a slimy sales technique.
If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN. If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.
You people and your obsessions with Blockstream  You couldn't just say that it was good for sidechains right? I have repeatedly explained why it is unlikely Blockstream's business model is limited to OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY, care to argue this? I have made my opinion known as to why it IS good for the Bitcoin protocol, care to share your insight? My argumented has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles. |
|
|
|
Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"? There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.
Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here. Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.
I have adressed quite clearly why it think it is important for the SPV proof to be implemented so that we don't end up with a majority of federated model/off-chain schemes. Improves:
Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.
It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect.
Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.
Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward.
What enables :
SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.
It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.
The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization Maybe you'd like to refine YOUR message so that we can all understand why it is the issues I have pointed out above are "no good" arguments |
|
|
|
2. Considering, as I've explained, that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.
It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.
Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future? Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source? (This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.) There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology. It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere. I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others. The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't. I wish them every success. It matters little what use Blockstream makes of the code. The fact is the code is open source. I see that you recognize this further down below so I'm not sure what is the point of your question. My argument is ANYONE can benefit from the change to the protocol that Blockstream suggests. |
|
|
|
do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems? it just shows how young and immature you are.
they just laugh at you like i do.
Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications. Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"? Can we please have the decency to leave my personal life out of this? |
|
|
|
Any side chain can of course be implemented entirely without Bitcoin at all. Perhaps, some would not be viable as federated systems, such as those needing a true zero trust environment and wanting to also hold BTC in their chain.
Its not really a zero trust application if you are trusting an oracle. Those would be fairly esoteric though, probably most of the ones that are being seriously contemplated would be accepted with a federated system, with the exception of those that may be requiring extraordinary security. If it is something where folks don't trust that the federating entity isn't their enemy in disguise. It would be one trust removed to have the protocol change.
Without the Bitcoin network running the verification, why use Bitcoin at all though? Might as well use an Altcoin as the "separated currency".
It would be a better bootstrap to prove the case anyway.
Though some of the issues are insidious and won't manifest their effects until there are a lot of locked coin.
Federated systems work fine until the federated server (or the Bitcoin network) goes away.
Bitcoin works fine, until the Bitcoin network goes away.
I agree with all of the above and am happy to see that your thoughts are aligned with mine. Why use Bitcoin? Simply because the altcoin as less interoperability as a "separated currency" and of course because it creates a new scarcity that does not respect Bitcoin's ledger. |
|
|
|
Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.
Good day gentleman, it is a beautiful snowy day outside. First, let us address this brain fart from our most cherished lunatic.  Why did I not think about this! You don't even need SPVProof, just bolt yourself to BTC directly through a federated server and "siphon" all these BTCs. But wait.... I still don't own them? How do you suggest I use Bitcoin without actually... you know... buying them? I mean it's cool and all if people lock their BTC to my sidechain but how is this supposed to "buy me a seat" in the system. Schyzophrenia : where attracting BTC is as easy as a creating a sidechain. |
|
|
|
The universe doesn't want any one money. Even with gold, there was also silver. And there are many, many other stores of value, such as famous paintings and other artwork, real estate and so on. Of course it does. The reason why we had silver to complement gold was because of physical issues pertaining to divisibility, transportation and weight. Those do not exist in the digital world. There is no silver to BTC. I wouldn't be so sure that a few big governments wouldn't agree on banning bitcoin. For the moment bitcoin has legal problems in Russia and in China to a certain extend. The day the US government also jumps in, I don't see how bitcoin can become a universal currency rapidly. It is too late for the US government to jump it. Bitcoin is now an industry in the US and they will face a colossal fuck up if they even attempt to squash it for what would be very anti-constitutional reasons. Because, after all, as long as there is no general *merchant* adoption, the only gateway to "buying stuff" with bitcoin are exchanges between fiat and bitcoin. This is why I think that the first adoption has to be merchant adoption.
But it has to be more than that: merchant adoption has to be such that the price is quoted in bitcoin, and is not just the "latest conversion of the price in fiat according to the rate at a given exchange".
This is backwards thinking. First it becomes a store-of-value, then a means-of-exchange and ultimately a unit of account. I don't think many people would, at the moment. I wouldn't. I might change my mind if I could buy most of the stuff directly quoted in bitcoin. If I could buy a car in bitcoin (and not as "a conversion from $ into bitcoin"). At that point, I would start to trust bitcoin as a store of value. I think many people would. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I wouldn't think right now, or in the coming years, that many people with a lot of money would put it into bitcoin as a store of value.
I think you're wrong. The features I have noted above demonstrate why it is so. Bitcoin is an infinitely better store of value than fiat. It has qualities that are too attractive for even the commoners to ignore. And as I've said above, it makes to sense to suggest Bitcoin would be used as a unit of account until it is adopted as a store of value. The devil is in the details: it is in the assumption of "stable". Stable in the sense of buying power. That can only be taken seriously if a lot of important stuff can be bought directly quoted in bitcoin, I would think.
In several developing countries, you're probably right, and I think that developing countries are probably the potentially biggest attraction pool of bitcoin usage, because their fiat is not very reliable. But the main currencies, like Euro or $$, I don't think people would bet on bitcoin in the coming years as "safer". Why not? It shields your wealth from inflation and keep it out of the hands of banks and mobsters. Buying power? Someone has informed you already but it is worth repeating that Bitcoin can buy any of the top major world currencies at extremely favorable exchange rates. Would you prefer holding inflationary fiat that loses buying power or Bitcoin that grows it with time? Your point is useless if you choose to ignore the speculative aspect. This is simply a dishonest way to argue against reality.
I do consider the speculative aspect, but the speculative big growth expectation has to be based upon something else than "more growth", because that is exactly what drives a Ponzi. There needs to be something else.
Now, I was given a clear answer: bitcoin is going to be the unique and universal money and value store.
Ok, but I do buy that only at very low probability in the foreseeable future, and I would think, most people with money, too.
I do not suggest that Bitcoin would become the one an only store of value but yes I do envision it become the unique money. Of course the probability is very low but the mere fact that it exists is what is responsible for that potential "to the moon" growth and therefore will continue to attract investors. That makes me smile a bit. *Fiat* is forced upon you because you have to pay your taxes in fiat. As long as a government decides that you have to pay your taxes in fiat, and as long as taxes make up a serious fraction of the economy, bitcoin *can't* take over the whole of payments. Because fiat will be in high demand to be able to pay taxes with !
Of course, the day that you are allowed to pay your taxes in bitcoin, your hypothesis has come true. I don't see that happening for a long, long time. I would think that most people would think that too. Simple : hold Bitcoins and cash out the necessary amount of fiat when it is time to pay your taxes. All the upsides of Bitcoin without the downsides of fiat. At this point I am not so sure the government is gonna be interested in its own worthless fiat though... which is why they'll probably be happy to get paid in BTC Once you are on the moon, the "to the moon" argument won't work anymore, right.
Now, I understand your stance here: you say that "to the moon" is a justified expectation as long as not everything monetary isn't done in bitcoin, and once everything is done in bitcoin, the discussion is over.
My point is that that scenario is highly unrealistic in the coming several decades, and if no "moon" is realised earlier, I think many will LEAVE bitcoin if there is no widespread merchant adoption. You are severely underestimating the power of network effect and technology adoption. It is not a slow, linear growth. It is exponential and once we go vertical (following the typical technology adoption s-curve) then it is hyper-exponential. If your scenario is realized 100 years from now, I'm honestly not interested, and I don't think many people would be interested. I'll be dead, my children will probably be dead, and I don't care further along the road. I don't think many people would buy into bitcoin if they had to wait for 100 years for "full moon".
And if your scenario is realized much earlier, I would be surprised. I don't think that 10 or 20 years from now, this will be the case. I wonder how many people would want to hold serious money into bitcoin waiting for more than 20 years "for full moon". We don't have to wait for full moon. If Bitcoin continues its growth trend then WHO would not want to hold their wealth in Bitcoin, hell you are almost guaranteed a 10x increase in buying power EVERY YEAR. Another thing you are severely underestimating is human greed. Just wait until we get to the next bubble and it will all become clear. So we have to consider something less ambitious, but more realistic as a "fundamental". This is what I'm after. What will be the expected market share of bitcoin, say, in 20 or 30 years ? Because that gives a *realistic* idea of the price of bitcoin to expect.
And the realistic answer to that is either 0,01%-1% or 95-100%. There is no in between. I have to disappoint you, but the current price doesn't indicate that. In order to have an idea what price expectations to hold realistically, you need also to have a realistic view on fundamentals in a few decades. And that's what I wanted to discuss. Now, you made your point, you think "full moon" is realistic. In that case, indeed, the real price should be tens of millions of $ per coin. Fact is, it isn't for the moment, which means that most market players don't think so. Now, of course, the main reason to be in a market is that one thinks one is smarter than the market - me too.
In order for a high price, say, $100 000, - to be sustainable, this would mean that enough people need to believe "full moon" with enough money. I don't think that moment is there yet. Not there yet but just around the corner. I would like to believe them, but unfortunately, I don't. I do think there is a place for bitcoin, but a much more modest one than you describe here (even though deep inside I wish you were right). In my opinion, the scenario you describe is at least a century away. It would be great if not, but I can't believe it. Again, you severely understimate the hyperexponential growth of technologies and the overwhelming power of something that combines the network effect of a protocol (think the internet) and money. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/why-bitcoin-will-continue-to-grow/ |
|
|
|
you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.
I think, you can't stop them too. :-) plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.
Bitcoin is not source code. Bitcoin is protocol and blockchain. 1. Source code of software (what works with bitcoin blockchain) is changing every day. (Bitcoin-core, Bitcoin-qt, Electum, MyCelium ... ) Bitcoin(in term of sotware) is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part. 2. Everybody can change and distribute "free software" to anyone and for any purpose. @Adrian-x Yes it is ethical that for-profit company creates software. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, HP, Samsung ... It's amazing, Odalv, even in his limited english, makes more sense than cypherclown and adrian |
|
|
|
Yes, but that doesn't give you any idea of its market share in 'steady state', nor as specific parameters such as hold time, and as such cannot be used to estimate a price. Of course bitcoin has good potential. But the price is not determined by that.
Government can kill bitcoin very simply, by rendering it illegal: openly, or by putting regulations on it that make it too difficult to handle. Then bitcoin is reduced to the black market as it was for a good part recently. I think, btw, that government is the biggest threat to bitcoin. Some government making Bitcoin illegal will only serve to legitimize it and accelerate its growth. Remember also that Bitcoin is GLOBAL, I don't believe you suggest all of the worlds' governement would ban BTC do you? The market share, in the proposed "steady state" can only be 100%. Only when it has attained 100% of its potential market adoption does it then become "steady". The universe wants ONE money. Good money drives out bad money. I'm trying to make you make a gedanken experiment. That doesn't seem to work. I'm asking you how much you honestly would put bitcoin at work as a store of value without huge expectations in gain (eventually just fluctuations and economic growth, which is the normal value evolution of any collectable) ; and in how much you think majority of people are going to act like that. Because *that* is what is going to determine its market share of the "store of value" aggregate demand, and hence part of its price.
The $500 000,- was just a mental exercise to make you think of a situation where "to the moon" growth is not to be considered anymore. My opinion on that is that most people holding bitcoin are mostly into it for the "to the moon" scenario, and NOT as a store of value without much hope of spectacular rise in the next 10 years or so. I do not have to argue against your misrepresentation of Bitcoin holders. So without any huge expectations in gain, and given a scenario where BTC's value is "stable" I would put 100% of my wealth into it for the reasons stated previously : 1. Deflationary 2. Ideal property as money 3. Distributed and outside the reach of any singular entity (read: government) 4. Programmable 5. Highly secure 6. Unseizable There are of course people who think that fiat will collapse and so on, but that is certainly not such a big majority that they can carry a market cap worth of hundreds of billions of dollars. People able to carry such a market cap are probably still into fiat and other stores of value. Again, good money drives out bad money. Given a choice to transfer their stake 1:1 into Bitcoin and have it remain "stable" then it is obvious that given proper education and some time to realize the benefits of Bitcoin money vs. Fiat the choice would be a no brainer. My point is not to argue what people *should* do, but what they are *going* to do. And my claim is, that today, and in the coming few years, there's not enough aggregate demand for store of value in bitcoin (without the speculative 'to the moon' aspect) that could sustain a high bitcoin price. That can only come much, much later in my opinion, in at least a decade or a few decades, and on the condition that bitcoin has had *another* support, namely as a means-to-buy-stuff. Your point is useless if you choose to ignore the speculative aspect. This is simply a dishonest way to argue against reality. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/Bitcoin will not be eagerly adopted by the mainstream, it will be forced upon them. Forced, as in "compelled by economic reality". People will be forced to pay with bitcoins, not because of 'the technology', but because no one will accept their worthless fiat for payments. Contrary to popular belief, good money drives out bad. This "driving out" has started as a small fiat bleed. It will rapidly escalate into Class IV hemorrhaging due to speculative attacks on weak fiat currencies. The end result will be hyperbitcoinization, i.e. "your money is no good here". Yes, all this is true in theory. The question is how much people RIGHT NOW and in the few coming years are going to take that argument and are going to put their value according to that statement.
I don't see many people selling their real estate to buy bitcoin because they are afraid it might get seized. Because the opposite side of the medal is that government renders bitcoin illegal. Then they cannot seize it, but what are you going to do with your coins ? Flee to a country where you can still exchange it against something ? Against what ? Fiat ? Real estate ?
You see, I also agree with all those potential aspects. But the price is made in the market, and is a matter of offer and demand. The part of demand that is speculative "to the moon" is not sustainable. So one has to have other steady state demands that are the ultimate drive to base speculation on. This is where we disagree again and where I have to insist that your argument is disingenuous and brings no value to the discussion. The speculative "to the moon" aspect is absolutely substainable. In fact it is only getting started. My claim is that right now, these fundamentals are:
- the stuff you can buy with bitcoin (growing, but still small, except maybe black markets)
- store of value in the long term, of which I think that for the moment, without speculative "to the moon" drive, there is not much, and there won't be as long as "the stuff you can buy with bitcoin" is not the main carrier of the aggregate demand. Step aside from your dream for a moment because right now, the speculative "to the moon" drive is alive and well. So your claim is essentially, that bitcoin will take over all of the money market, and the store of value market.
That the 50 trillion dollar equivalent worldwide of M2 fiat money will completely turn into bitcoin. And you think that governments will let that happen any time soon. And that most of the rest of store of value will be in bitcoin (gold, ...).
When do you think that will happen ? A century from now ? 50 years from now ? Yes I believe this could happen. I don't want to guarantee it but it is likely and becoming more inevitable every day. Governments will be powerless unless they turn into full on tyranical totalitarian states which I can tell you that as much power as you can bestow to governments history has shown that they are effectively no match against a full on revolution. If it does happen. Then it will be MUCH quicker than you would tend to believe. And IMO, yes gold will be relegated to a useless relic used only for certain industrial purposes. It is no match for Bitcoin. It is a way to look at things, but I would give it a rather low probability. It is probably much more realistic that bitcoin will take a small share of the market, and try to estimate that. That will happen much sooner, a few decades from now at most.
Either Bitcoin is relegated to insignificance or its network effects gobbles up all of the financial world. Assuming that Bitcoin will satisfy itself with a "small" share of the market and stagnate is even less probable and IMO very naive. |
|
|
|
There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.
1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.
You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,
Actually I've addressed those several times. And by the way never did he mention the incentive structure. That was YOUR argument. But lemme explain to you again 1.
the answer to the question must be fact and should be indisputable: Does the proposed protocol change to accommodate the SPV proof change the intensive scheme in Bitcoin in any way?
once you have answered that honestly we can debate about how and how much and when and where.
Yes. I believe it actually improves it and enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions even in a future where there will be a demand for features and applications that can NOT be implemented on the mainchain.
please define "improves"
please define "what "enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions?"
Improves: Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability. It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward. This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect. Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects. Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward. What enables : SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain. It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation. The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization 2. Considering, as I've explained, that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE. It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology. |
|
|
|
i'm just relieved to know that i really am arguing with a 24yo kid with a shitty job.  (who still might be a Blockstream shill) I had all kinds of shitty jobs when I was a kid (but I didn't end up with any college debt.) I actually enjoyed all of the shitty jobs and moved on when I stopped enjoying them. Anyway, I don't have much respect for anyone who does NOT have a shitty job at that age. It only tells me that they are probably some sort of a silver spoon trust fund brat. i mean it's like talking to a chameleon. he makes one shitty argument, i rebut, then he diverts to a totally different argument as if the first one never existed. the irony. we don't believe you, you need more people |
|
|
|
So this is how you play heh... well here I go I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.
Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.) Agreed. When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network. The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage. Sounds good, moving on... Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested. SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value. They don't secure the value? As long as miners MM the sidechain they absolutely do. I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.
SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.
To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin. Miners will not limit their reward to only one chain but an ecosystem of chain with value. We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely. I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain) "The most viable argument" is in fact a very good argument and so you cannot casually dismiss it by a non-argument stating that "you don't think that is a secure strategy". Also consider this : what if we don't have sidechains and the value chain is actually a federated model scheme or a off-chain service. Remember that the demand for convenience, utility and speed that is not implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain is very real and will only grow as BTC grows. Then not only would the Bitcoin blockchain become less secure but the whole security and integrity of the system would be in danger as miners would have no more incentive to secure it (all the txs are processed through federation/oracles/offchain). Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.
SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.
What if corpCOIN or paypalCOIN is created through a federated server? Is that not the same "attack vector".? I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.
It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.
And with that we complete our loop and return to the argument that SPVproof does not introduce that risk. Consider there are two existing suspects who are equally capable or disrupting Bitcoin's "greater liquidity" or "economic memory" : -conventional off-chain schemes -federated peg sidechains Ask yourself what is the better way to preserve the ledger's integrity and its economic memory considering the eventual need for BTC to fulfill transactions types and applications that are not implementable on the core blockchain : -Decentralized algorithmically pegged sidechains or -Proprietary off-chain schemes with considerable centralization risks & -Federation/oracles supported sidechains that could potentially revoke the miners claim at processing and profiting from tx fees To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, It’s my view that this is in debate when in fact it isn’t.
Some considerations for MM SC:
Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions?
Yes, as equally possible as an off-chain service or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could. Which is worse?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SC’s then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SC’s?
Very likely
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?
Possible. But more likely that any chain supporting considerable value will be mined equally. Even more likely the chain with the most fees remain BTC's
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Same question, same answer
Is it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners won’t be Bitcoin?
Possible. But unlikely. Is it possible the chain with the most transactions (highest profit margin) is off-chain services or federated sidechain? If so which is worse?
Is it possible that when Bitcoin’s block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason)
Very likely considering there will remain considerable amount of transactions on the original blockchain. Is it possible if this is not the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?
If the above came to pass, knowing the majority of a miner’s revenue is generated by a SC, who will have a profit motive to grow the Hashing power on the Bitcoin Blockchain to protect it?
Why would they want to protect it?
Is it possible if this is the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?
Back at ya |
|
|
|
Peter exactly distilled both our arguments, along with NL's. so yeah, i'm happy.
why do i put up with brg444? i don't know. not that i can do anything about him. he does help me distill and crystallize my thoughts on this issue which is good. i know exactly where my objection lies: the SPVproof. aka offramp.
So you prefer centralized, less secure, more opaque off-chain schemes that can eventually lead to concerning disincentivization for the miners to secure the network and creates considerably more fractional reserve risks. That's rather strange  |
|
|
|
Peter exactly distilled both our arguments, along with NL's. so yeah, i'm happy.
why do i put up with brg444? i don't know. not that i can do anything about him. he does help me distill and crystallize my thoughts on this issue which is good. i know exactly where my objection lies: the SPVproof.
Hmmm nop. I'm not gonna let you piggyback off Peter & NL's contribution. Their comments had nothing to do with your schizophrenic brain farts. |
|
|
|
you mean like this trick? i'm an asshole.
Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument. You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of. do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems? it just shows how young and immature you are. they just laugh at you like i do. Seems to my like he's pounding your balls flat with a mallet. It's all kinds of funny. Sure I'm laughing too not because brg444 has a solid argument but because cypher keeps him going, the parts that makes it worth reading is the self proclaimed arrogance, shining through the insults. ___ Why do you put up with it cypher, not that you need to do anything, I like Peter's distillation of the issue, what follows is insight brg444 doesn't want presented, so you not getting an opportunity to refine you're point. Still waiting |
|
|
|
p the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  How dare you !  They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch? My pitch? My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument. wat?! lol! always misportraying my position to try and make yourself look good. girl. girl where is that even coming from by the way I'm standing right here on the corner waiting for you to formulate your next sidechains doomsday scenario. better make it a good one this time, the last few were a bit too shallow on paranoia |
|
|
|
i'm just relieved to know that i really am arguing with a 24yo kid with a shitty job. (who still might be a Blockstream shill) this 24 y/o has been making a mockery of you in your own thread. that should bring you no form of relief whatsoever |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
