"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.
But altcoins so far have not proved to be anything but Bitcoin clones with little innovation of sound economics behind them. My point was that the world works better using only ONE form of money. Innovation of the money technology != competition. Altcoins in theory should only exist as a lab for innovation. They have been perverted as pump & dump scheme because of the necessity for them to create their own currency. Now that sidechains exist we remove this issue and return to the essence of altchains : a complementary chain to Bitcoin's economy that serves as a testing ground for new features. |
|
|
|
I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.
(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).
You'll have to explain why because all signs point to the contrary |
|
|
|
I'll point my miners wherever i get the biggest reward, (value as i define it) I'll MM anything of value, if my business is sustained by tx feed in a SC blocks, and the Bitcoin Block reward is not a significant income stream, I will have no incentive to mine it. the hashrate will grow on the chain that has the most value, I may even keep earning income on the SC and contribute to a coordinated attack to prevent people moving out of the profitable SC and into Bitcoin, note there would be an insignificant cost to me to do so, as I get my income from the SC.
The dynamics have changed since SC has enter the scene. You are no more required to only mine one chain. You can simultaneously MM ANY chain that has considerable value and support the system has a whole. Creating a security hole in any of the interconnecting chains can be damageable to all of them you not only do you have economic incentive to mine all of them to secure different streams of revenue but as a miner you should also support most chains who gain any traction and community traction to secure the whole ecosystem. I'll MM anything of value
In a SC scenario, there is no more only one chain with value. And growth in value of other, interconnected chains likely converge to all the other chains. Of all the likely scenario, the death of the main chain because is the most far fetched one as it is the root for the whole system. |
|
|
|
so as you are in agreement its all possible you haven't addresses the logical outcome (note thread link history conveniently cut)
Logical outcome of what exactly? And what do you mean by the last part of your comments? |
|
|
|
Adrian, I'm not sure you have read the other thread but I will copy this here in case you haven't Here is Adam Back adressing what seems to be your main concern. Its not that a sidechain displaces bitcoin hypothetically and that this is bad; a sidechain is bitcoin, its the mechanism to internetwork bitcoin, to build on it. Sidechains no more displace bitcoin than HTTP displaces the TCP and IP protocol it is transported on. Alt-coins and alt-shares are in nominal competition with bitcoin, though it seems highly unlikely they would catchup with bitcoin's network effect nor reach an appreciable real-life usage; but sidechains are not in competition.
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.
Anyway one potential use for a sidechain is to host a beta for a major new bitcoin version. If that version after say $1b value running in it for a year, gets upgraded into bitcoin, that hasnt displaced bitcoin, its facilitated its feature and performance upgrade, which is a good thing for everyone.
The exciting thing about the internet wasnt just the ability to send IP packets, but all the applications and permissionless innovation that could be built using that transport. Same for bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)
how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.
1. This is an hyperbole and would take a considerably particular turn of event to happen 2. I'm not sure if this is the 100th or 1000th I've said it : miners are incentivised to mine the Bitcoin blockchain as long as there is block subsidy. It is trivial for them to MM whatever chain has value and can create value for them and this is what they will do. |
|
|
|
To consider sidechains and think only of the good ideas it enables and ignore the perils is stupid I don't know where to begin. you can begin comprehensive reading at page 698 but we've left you guys dozens of page to come up with a plausible, considerable risk that would warrant not to integrate sidechains to Bitcoin and you have continuously failed. face it, the upside is considerably more interesting AND plausible than any of the strech of the mind paranoiac scenario your team has come up with |
|
|
|
You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.
Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case?
You still don't get it, do you? Bitcoin is the motor behind sidechains. But you HAVE to continue coming up with conspiracy theory heh |
|
|
|
 so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that. so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth. if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible. You guys really just skimmed through my post heh Of course there will be thousands of SC serving differents financial purposes (stock issuance, etc. etc.) But you can only attach so many additional functions to Bitcoin as money (store of value, means of exchange). Bitcoin as is works perfectly fine as store of value but has some deficiencies as a mean of exchange. Sidechains are here to solve these without relying on trusted third parties in a way that is interoperable with Bitcoin blockchain, preserves the Bitcoin ledger and prevents issues of trust and fractional reserve in the most decentralized way possible |
|
|
|
no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.
The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.
Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.
if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?
But that's the point my friend! Sidechains are not decentralized exchange for altcoins! It is much more interesting than that. And you concern about miners abandoning the mainchain is not very plausible considering its block subsidy will continue for a long, long time and every miners will want a piece of that. |
|
|
|
Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.
 You'll risk a network and infrastructure several orders of magnitude bigger because "the recovery after 0.8.1" was impressive? You're supposed to be the guy who wants to protect the Bitcoin blockchain That is not a very cautious way to go about it |
|
|
|
In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?
if not, do you want it to be?
Separate as in one existing without the other? Of course not. But this is not the same as saying BTC can't move around and be used on other sidechains. Yes it is. Those SC's are fundamentally different with different properties and security. But conserve the ledger intact. That is all that matters right? |
|
|
|
I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?
you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!? the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !? what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function? |
|
|
|
keep the top to to bitcoin and gold. we need Altcoins they not a treat. take that idea elsewhere.
you can't make this stuff up. someone who champion the preservation of Bitcoin's hard money unique ledger and is worried about inflation but says "we need altcoins" |
|
|
|
Wow, you seem so certain of this. Can we see the research on this? Both technical and economic? Because if you're wrong, we're all going to lose a lot of money.
But it sounds like you'd like us all to just trust your judgment.
Yes. I am certain that you don't understand sidechain. I don't need to present a research. Slowly but surely people in this thread are realizing it also. You just need to humble yourself, take a step back and gather your thoughts to come to the same realizaton |
|
|
|
In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?
if not, do you want it to be?
Separate as in one existing without the other? Of course not. But this is not the same as saying BTC can't move around and be used on other sidechains. |
|
|
|
WTF in 30 years the block reward will be 0.10 BTC per block. it costs a minimum of $3300 to make one today.
do you know what the price of bitcoin will be? - I dont, but given the existing reward structure I know it will be as impervious to a 51% stack as it is today, change the prototypical intensive and I'm not so sure.
If there are no SC and Bitcoin needed to support the same security it has today the price of a a single bitcoin would have to sell for over $30,000 just to maintain the hashing power we have today - that assuming no growth, if there is big growth, and we talking trillions in market cap, a block reward will have to be higher, can you guarantee there will be enough hashing power to protect Bitcoin if miners get most of there revenue from another chain?
If you don't believe that in 30 years either Bitcoin is dead or the price by coin is WELL over $30,000 then there is no use arguing with you |
|
|
|
Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period
But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange. If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming. Precisely. To consider sidechains and think only of sidecoins booted on top of it is so ass-backward and stupid I don't know where to begin. |
|
|
|
Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.
 but sidechains are there to save us from altcoins while preserving any useful features they might come up with. why can't you understand this  1:1 sidechains + altcoins features = new & improved Bitcoin ledger = everybody win! It is very tragic that such a Bitcoin supporter as yourself cannot see the light  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
