1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork) but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway Maybe in your mind... in my opinion the whole point of SC is to allow innovation in the crypto space without diluting bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't need to be a timestamping service or a distributed computing platform, but both are valid uses cases of sidechains. in brg444's mind as well. and i agree with his preference, if i were to call it that, b/c MM'ing SC's forever is inherently wasteful as well in terms of data
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's? I disagree with him on this point and so I won't argue in support of him here.
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly Possibly, but the initial increase will cause a devaluation. It may well establish a sound equilibrium after some time, but we won't know unless we try. And if it fails, we're fucked because you insisted on doing it on the main chain instead of testing things on a segregated sidechain. me? why, thank you. i had no idea.
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
true
5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit. It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)
why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago? Several factors are in play, including transaction fees and goodwill. Miners know that if they only produce empty blocks it will hurt the very currency they are paid in. Regardless, this seems like an argument against Gavin's proposal. I thought you were in favor of it? i am in favor of it. |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. FYI Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s it is 144 GB every day and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially ) why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's? I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate. where does he get this?: But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.
That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.
After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day. |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. FYI Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps today. => bitcoin need more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations => 1 GB every 10 min/s it is 144 GB every day and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially ) why are Gavin's calcs so different? when is he going to comment on SC's? |
|
|
|
1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork) but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
true
5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit. It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)
why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago? |
|
|
|
Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.
Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.
It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin but Linux is an OS. the question is, does Bitcoin as Money need, require, or want a Redhat of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
you may be right. i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.
i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever." and this part which i said above:
he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion. a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.
when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious. he should know better.
I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever. I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way. but he's a CS from Oxford. here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete. maybe he didn't mean it but still: In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's. this is the last i'll say on this.  Erroneous no. Incomplete, yes indeed. actually, you're right. |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...). who is against increasing block size and why? |
|
|
|
you may be right. i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.
i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever." and this part which i said above:
he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion. a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.
when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious. he should know better.
I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever. I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way. but he's a CS from Oxford. here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete. maybe he didn't mean it but still: In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's. this is the last i'll say on this. |
|
|
|
Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.
yep |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. |
|
|
|
i hate articles like these, esp from guys like J Levin who i think is generally respected in the community b/c of his Oxford CS training and Coinometrics. i however have not been impressed with his previous thinking as he is one of the geeks who doesn't fully get Bitcoin: https://medium.com/@jony_levin/i-love-the-blockchain-just-not-bitcoin-354c511ad3e5same reason, same hate from me: he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed or that it can somehow be replaced or added to with another token (currency unit). he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion. a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete. this is still a problem i have with making protocol changes; how do you insert a protocol change that doesn't favor a certain group of ppl or disadvantage the ppl that have come before the change? b/c Bitcoin is an open community, outside voices are allowed to be heard loud and clear. however, we never know to what extent they are personally invested in the former rule set (protocol) as opposed to the new rule set they are proposing. I'm not certain what problem you have with his article? Where does he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed? In his conclusion ("it this does not have to be the case forever.") ? It seems to me you have misunderstood the premise of his article. When he mentions : I would like to push for blockchains with native tokens rather than just blockchains (innovative, probabilistically immutable databases) which have far lower utility if any. He is not supporting or demanding the creation of different blockchains but merely implying that the use of the blockchain technology necessitate a native token. He then demonstrates why it is so and confirms the importance of the Bitcoin unit. He very much supports the arguments you, and most of us, have championed in this thread. you may be right. i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush. i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever." and this part which i said above: he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion. a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious. he should know better. |
|
|
|
And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. TBF and Blockstream are the only companies paying people to develop on Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is not the only implementation of Bitcoin. Conformal Systems did, in fact, "put up" and received little-to-no acknowledgement for doing so. (To say nothing of all the other developers who tried to do the same thing but were not able to overcome the resistance and stonewalling via which Bitcoin Core team defends their turf) "Shut up or put up" is a lie, because as soon as somebody actually does it the goal posts promptly move. actually, what happens if SPVproof gets added to Bitcoin Core but BTC-d ignores it? edit: or libbitcoin or BitcoinJS for that matter? |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? How about to provide a service via that sidechain that is paid for in BTC pegged currency? I'd much rather innovate to earn BTC than innovate and then have to worry about bootstrapping a currency. agreed, but what would be the mechanism of the pmt? is this what "demurrage" is supposed to do ala LukeJr keeps talking about? |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? |
|
|
|
i hate articles like these, esp from guys like J Levin who i think is generally respected in the community b/c of his Oxford CS training and Coinometrics. i however have not been impressed with his previous thinking as he is one of the geeks who doesn't fully get Bitcoin: https://medium.com/@jony_levin/i-love-the-blockchain-just-not-bitcoin-354c511ad3e5same reason, same hate from me: he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed or that it can somehow be replaced or added to with another token (currency unit). he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion. a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete. this is still a problem i have with making protocol changes; how do you insert a protocol change that doesn't favor a certain group of ppl or disadvantage the ppl that have come before the change? b/c Bitcoin is an open community, outside voices are allowed to be heard loud and clear. however, we never know to what extent they are personally invested in the former rule set (protocol) as opposed to the new rule set they are proposing. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is really a thorny problem. i try to reconcile it over and over but i can't. it's so painful b/c of all the talented long term core devs and commiters participating. i know that while i might be the only one objecting now, we as a community will hear this objection loud and clear later by traditional financial competitors.
the Fed analogy is pretty darn close as an illustration: if 40% of Fed governors + key management personnel announced tomorrow that they were going to form Fedstream a for-profit corporation to capitalize on their soon to be implemented new negative interest rate scheme here in the US, i suggest we all would scream bloody murder and demand that they all step down out of conflict of interest.
Fedstream works in the "old system" where people run it and requires trust along the whole process. Conflict of interest is a very big concern. Bitcoin on the other hand is not a financial system built by trusted networks of people but on code. It's a protocol designed in such a way we don't have to trust people but rather the protocol. And because it is open-source we can always see how it is working. I wouldn't worry too much about Blockstream. They seem like a bunch of good guys AND the entire community gets to monitor all their work. It will all be out in the open. but they're re-writing the protocol (rules) to add the SPVproof which will facilitate their profit model at the expense of altcoins (if you believe brg444) and Bitcoin 2.0's. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is really a thorny problem. i try to reconcile it over and over but i can't. it's so painful b/c of all the talented long term core devs and commiters participating. i know that while i might be the only one objecting now, we as a community will hear this objection loud and clear later by traditional financial competitors.
the Fed analogy is pretty darn close as an illustration: if 40% of Fed governors + key management personnel announced tomorrow that they were going to form Fedstream a for-profit corporation to capitalize on their soon to be implemented new negative interest rate scheme here in the US, i suggest we all would scream bloody murder and demand that they all step down out of conflict of interest.
and you know what? they probably would. in fact, i know they would. |
|
|
|
|
Blockstream is really a thorny problem. i try to reconcile it over and over but i can't. it's so painful b/c of all the talented long term core devs and commiters participating. i know that while i might be the only one objecting now, we as a community will hear this objection loud and clear later by traditional financial competitors.
the Fed analogy is pretty darn close as an illustration: if 40% of Fed governors + key management personnel announced tomorrow that they were going to form Fedstream a for-profit corporation to capitalize on their soon to be implemented new negative interest rate scheme here in the US, i suggest we all would scream bloody murder and demand that they all step down out of conflict of interest.
|
|
|
|
calm down and listen.
a BTC speculator is convinced by over the top Dogecoin advertising (similar to TC) that he wants exposure to Dogecoin price volatility speculation. he doesn't want to use a centralized exchange. he decides to transfer into the Dogecoin SC via an available 1:1 peg that gives him scBTC in a holding position on the Dogecoin SC. he waits until the appropriate time to convert scBTC-->Dogecoin at his strike price. now he has a position. simple as that. there will be plenty of ppl who might want to do this just like keystroke wants to do with TC. you can't say it won't happen or that it is even a dumb move. it's all a matter of opinion.
my pt is that SC's have done nothing to kill off Dogecoin and may have in fact strengthened it by facilitating the above process via the 2wp.
fair enough, I can see your point. my problem with you argument is that you suggest because they will not "kill", per say, these kind of altcoins, then sidechains lose their purpose. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. There are plenty of pegged (1:1) use cases for Sidechains that can benefit Bitcoin. I would argue the primary "raison d'être" of sidechains is to enable these 1:1 utility chains. wow, after 200 pgs we have an agreement. i would love to see SC's fulfill their primary goal; that of innovating Bitcoin esp for fast tx and anonymity. i just fear the unknown secondary effects, one being the perverse strengthening of altcoins via the bolt on. how do you propose to assess the efficacy/success of these utility chains over time? |
|
|
|
So why exactly are you surprised then that devs were willing to join Blockstream? Isn't that exactly the point? Fund innovation I'm sorry but "monetizing" an innovation by creating a scammy coin on top of it is the least ethical way to go about it. I hope you will agree with that. This is Andrew's main argument in his paper against altcoin : The Bitcoin community differs in both those respects. Your crankery is not cute. You are not a cryptographer, and yet are releasing a homebrew cryptosystem, misrepresenting your own qualifications, and encouraging others to store value in your creation. These actions are incompetent, dishonest and reprehensibly dangerous. If somehow you are doing this through honest cluelessness, I dream that you’ll read this article and realize the error of your ways. i understand it in principle but i don't agree the way they're going about it. as painful as it would be for me to see it, i would expect them to step down from their core dev positions b/c otherwise it sends the wrong message to the market place; that being that a bunch of insiders (core devs) MAY abuse their position in the future to block out any innovations to Bitcoin to protect Blockstream profits. so you understand my argument about why the vast majority of altcoins will bolt on to Bitcoin MC utilizing the 2wp and how it might be a bigger threat than it already is to Bitcoin in the long run? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
