Their customers will attempt to build moats by creating improvements in sidechains, and those moats would be threatened by having that capability in Bitcoin.
If their revenue comes from having customers, they have an incentive to take actions that benefit their customers, such as using their influence to delay or block progress in Bitcoin.
It seems highly improbable to me that they would build for their clients anything that would be related to the monetary functions of Bitcoin. That's not what "building on top of Bitcoin" means. Applications do not correct or improve features of the protocol they run on. They model it to their need. Also, remember that we are dealing with open source here. |
|
|
|
so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?
or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.
If you mean from mining SCs (note the s) then yes absolutely. Because that probably translates to a considerable amount of sidechains splitting the 70% pie with the other 30% going to the BTC chain. That sounds plausible to me. So your suggestion is miners have no use for the millions of dollars representing that 30% right? Yup you right they should probably drop it! that's not economically practical, make a futures trade on some basket of SC's and 51% attack Bitcoin that economically incentive. Hmm no. Bitcoin is the most secure chain. There is no more economic incentive to attack it with sidechains than there is without. |
|
|
|
its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.
Whose incentives? If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other? Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is. Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains. In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream. Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests. It seems obvious to me. They're the redhat for Bitcoin. They build decentralized infrastructure for companies on top of sidechains. Let me spin the question around and ask how they could maliciously profit from sidechains? |
|
|
|
its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.
Whose incentives? If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other? |
|
|
|
so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?
or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.
If you mean from mining SCs (note the s) then yes absolutely. Because that probably translates to a considerable amount of sidechains splitting the 70% pie with the other 30% going to the BTC chain. That sounds plausible to me. So your suggestion is miners have no use for the millions of dollars representing that 30% right? Yup you right they should probably drop it! |
|
|
|
come on brg444 your jumping all over the show lets just finish addressing your assumptions 1 at a time you can't prove an argument on an assumption that is in debate it's like you aren't reading this thread!
if you sent out a one liner that doesn't relate the question and the respondent brings it back into focus you should address it so we can move on. this is going no where because you not reading or taking the time to comprehend. and arguing for goodness sake.
I'm sorry, your team keeps moving the goal post I'm not sure what to address anymore  So what was your misunderstanding again? |
|
|
|
The point clearly went over your head.
Don't feel too bad, it's been that way for the last 20 pages  |
|
|
|
how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements?
SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.
GREAT ARGUMENTS! Man you really showed him! I especially like the parts about "SC is a terrible solution for testing features" and "Testnet is where you test bitcoin features" Way to go bro! |
|
|
|
That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains. They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.  the logic is sidecoin offers a feature that is not available on the Bitcoin chain. |
|
|
|
Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.
But sidechains were not create to create altcoins. There is something called altcoins that exist for that purpose |
|
|
|
sure!
NO
How? well, first you make the change to the protocol and the market does the rest.
so my question is is it possible yes or no?
my answer is categorically NO. it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red. in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support it. |
|
|
|
if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.
as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.
Because Bitcoin is more secure, hence the reserve, or vault comparison. Sure it might come a point where everyone wanting to use BTC as day-to-day currency will leave them on a sidechain for convenience purposes but while some transfer parties value convenience, anonymity or what not, others value security. And Bitcoin is inherently more secure than any sidechains. For that reason it will continue to be used for high value transfer, inter-bank settlements and what not I think the problem is you are misguided as to what people value. Different strokes for different folks. That's the beauty of sidechains |
|
|
|
That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains. |
|
|
|
My deductions can be wrong, but Im talking about a situation where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?
As time goes on and the block chain subsidy is reduced is it conceivable that a situation could arise where I MM and as a miner I can get 95% of my income from MM SC and 5% while MM bitcoin? is it not?
Or maybe it is more like 10% from SC1, 5% from SC2, 2% from SC3, 3% from SC4, 20% from SC5, 30% from SC6, 30% from BTC. Don't you think? Also, the premise of your argument is that there are effectively no more tx happening on the Bitcoin network. You have yet to come up with a plausible scenario as to how this would happen. Considering its reserve status, my impression is that maybe the number of transactions would be fewer but the value of each of them would be considerably larger than on other chains. |
|
|
|
when you stop converting into the main chain and you have lots of other more valuable chains this is called inflation.
I'm still unsure where miners get there intensive to support a chain that docent provide a mining investment. when you can explain that you'll have me.
you'll have to phrase the first one differently because I don't quite get what you're saying. what do you mean by "stop converting into the main chain". how do you qualify more valuable chains? more txs? As for your question. Bitcoin has one advantage over sidechains - it has the subsidy, and full node security, so I'm sure it'll be able to defend itself against abandonment or insecurity, and sidechains depend on bitcoin anyway so all bitcoin users on which ever chains have a meta-incentive to see bitcoin main remain secure. We have decades of subsidy ahead to deal with fee-only security for bitcoin, and sidechains may move forward the ways to do that because the sidechain by default has only fee security from the start.
You expect that all txs converge to one chain and create THE most valuable chain for miners to mine but in a world of sidechain how does that work? Is it the anonymous chain? Is it the fast tx chain? How does the miner decide? Maybe... just maybe... he should mine... ALL of them. Does that not make sense to you? |
|
|
|
Therefore, the peg with no restrictions in conversion volume will necessary make value either move fully to bitcoin, or fully to the sidechain.
That doesn't make much sense. Can you explain your thoughts on the mechanics of that? |
|
|
|
Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them.
No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market. why adopt bitcoin? Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold. " No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too. It was just a light comment, driven by the fact that Fiat is not actually money. Calm down. why adopt bitcoin? is light question reflecting the ignorance that we need to destroy competition to make bitcoin succeed. the only problem with fiat is inflation, the majority in the world believe that make it good money. Bitcoin the Blockchain - not BTC, its the value is resides, BTC is how we manage proof of ownership. it is preserved and regulated because of the incentive structure that is what makes it viable, Bitcoin is the only shot we have an hard money, and the proposed protocol change will Preserve the 21M BTC but allow institutions to extract value from the blockchain by creating assets outside the incentive structure. this is the same problem with fiat, 1 in a million see the problem of inflation, this proposed change will have the same effect on Bitcoin. this is where you are continuously wrong. the incentive structure doesn't get avoided, it merely expands into sub network of shared value |
|
|
|
The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.
I'm referring to your doubt of a tied value peg between the two units |
|
|
|
whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)
if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.
If it is pegged 1:1 then BTC goes up in value with it. If it's not then it's just another altcoin. A backdoor re-introduction of your GOVcoin scenario I suppose. Explain to me again how sidechains created this problem? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
