its not better technology that will replace bitcoin its better propaganda and consumer confidence keepers, some improvment i can see implemented in SC adjusting the fixed supply to a constant 3% economic growth stimulates (because economists think moderate monetary growth is good) increasing the tx fees, we need more miners for security, and teh proponents saying you the people, listen up, we have embraced bitcoin's blockchain technology its been improved and is safe for consumer adoption, were moving our national currency into the blockchain.
and in the blink of an eye Bitcoins tiny billion dollar market cap is absorbed and assimilated and usurped. Replaced not by better tech but by confidence spinning.
 my man, I have to say you almost had me. I, for one second, had the impression I was conversing with a smart fellow. You should be ashamed of such deception. your argument is GOVcoin, with inflationary features and corporate sponsors will kill Bitcoin? well my friend, this is the beauty of cryptocurrency. the democracy of money, where people vote with their $ (or BTC) and may the best man win. let them have their attempt at GOVcoin and the free market will decide who the winner is. I, for one, will have no part in it but I wish them luck. they will need lots of it. |
|
|
|
I'm going to quote Justus again  Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
.... Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive.
Metcalfe's law was my way of thinking about it, I'm happy for something better to come along, i believe bitcoin is a better store of value because the the economic energy maintaining the ledger stays in the ecosystem. as soon as bitcoins move into a SC the SC benefits with no downside risk, the locked scBTC has no value as the value is in the SC tokens. if it goes bad just get a computer to refund your BTC, if it succeeds then the value is gone for good it resided in the SC, theoretically you can convert it back but why? it seems to me the more SC grow the less valuable BTC becomes. I don't see how his quote helps you much. The SC, to me, is part of the ecosystem, unless it issues a different token on its own chain. I take objections with the kind of statements that suggest it "could go bad". A sidechain using a 1:1 peg of BTC as its unit cannot go bad from my point of view because they are UTILITY chains. Either they execute their purpose as designed or they don't. Only suckers will want to speculate with these type of chains. I think we all agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and actually pretty close to being perfect as is. As I have mentionned above, its only shortcomings are in its transportive properties : confirmation times and inability to provide private transactions natively. This leads me to believe these two aspects are likely the only ones that who will lead to the creation of utility sidechains that are used as subsets of Bitcoin-money. In all honesty, is there anything more we need from Bitcoin, as a mean of exchange, than faster confirmation time and a privacy option? I don't think so. Thousands of other sidechains will be created for different purposes but none will be competing with Bitcoin for its position as crypto-money. Some might try, but will realise they will be better off applying their competing idea to an actual altcoin. Back to my two utility sidechains : these will never take over Bitcoin as they are effectively serving only a certain application or subset of money. Considering these two applications are using a BTC-peg as their transacting unit they are, barring some technicalities, a part of the Bitcoin network and closely tied to the native bitcoin unit, so much in fact that their 1:1 value will always gravitate toward each others and this correlation will become narrower as arbitrage comes into effect and time allows the technology to mature. |
|
|
|
Nothing can replace bitcoin. Bitcoin for life  who knows. before 2009 no one thought we could replace gold as a store of value. |
|
|
|
mining must also go through a market evolution, it must stop growing as some point. locking in to PoW MM for ever is not evolution it is manipulation, who knows the bitcoin killer may use proof of Bandwidth or proof of Block Archiving. if you do that with a SC I think Bitcoin would become obsolete as the value will leak into the SC as fast as rewards diminish.
so essentially your concern is now that Bitcoin gets replaced because a better technology came along  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin.
Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place. I mine, i used to MM NameCoin, i dropped it because it wasn't worth the effort and the 2% pool fee i sacrificed on by BTC. nameCoin's fate could happen to Bitcoin, also 14 years form now we may choose to drop bitcoin altogether because its not needed anymore, it worked as a seed for the SC's. I'm sorry but this is a very, very shaky parallel to make. If Bitcoin is not needed it is only because a better store of value will have appeared. If it is so then let it be, but I don't find it likely since Bitcoin has worked exceptionnaly well so far, benefits from a considerable network effect and has very sound fundamentals. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin.
Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place. and bitcoins move into the side chain, and the Bitcoin network shrivels, and stop growing because miners cant make a profit from the transaction fees.
Again, miners don't have to choose one chain to mine. They can and will profit from mining the two. your vision of bitcoin being the backing for all of chain growth is only viable so long as Bitcoin is the MC, when it stops being the MC due to the Metacafe's law the SC will absorb and shake themselves of it, the SC may have an inflation sachem that rewards miners in a more favorably, be better amalgamated with the Banking carrells and it is not a stretch to see bitcoin being abandoned, or even needed.
SC that take improve on bitcoins utility do it by inflating value off chain, and bitcoin dosn't grow the SC grows.
I'm not convinced by your theory that Bitcoins locked on 1:1 peg creates a new network that competes with Bitcoin's. As for the second part of your comment, it defeats logic to suggest Bitcoin would be defeated by an inflationary sidechain with closer ties to the banking cartels. It is straight up ridiculous in fact. the issue is you get the value leaking problem if the SC are beneficial. anonymity isn't so great when you want to prove you made a payment. at this point in time it is the No. 1 Killer app as there are lots of stolen coins wanting to come out, and it would help Bitcoin grow like in silk road commerce.
but ultimately Bitcoins Pseudonymity is forcing decentralized trust free serves like OpenBazaar and OT exchanges where your identity is never revealed, or if it is you chose which one. Decentralized and trust free everything is much more valuable then anonymous BTC, in a decentralized trust free world Pseudonymity is anonymity
I agree 100% with your comments on transparency and anonymity but I take problem with your "value leaking" theory. There is no value leaking, it is an essentially an ecosystem sharing value in a synergic manner. |
|
|
|
People have been proposing this because they are economically ignorant.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
Before you start talking about gold - no, it won't work that way.
Prior to central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because it was used as a medium of exchange.
After central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because of taxation.
Bitcoin could never survive as a high-fee settlement currency because high fees would arise due to block size rationing, not because transactions should naturally cost that much for technical reasons. Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive. Yes, getting there is a difficult technical problem to solve. Deal with it.
Where did you get the idea of intrinsic value? I can't find it in my comments. I don't agree with your comments. Bitcoin will be used as a medium-of-exchange, only, by proxy, through a BTC-pegged unit on a more efficient sidechain. I know you will say money doesn't require backing but in the case of Bitcoin it does not matter. On the contrary, I find the comparison to gold to be excellent. I know we all hate fiat for what it has become but the fiat technology was a fantastic idea and for a moment a great advancement for our society. It came out of necessity for a more transportable and convenient mean of exchange. Much like gold, Bitcoin's transportation property suffers from some shortcomings : confirmation time & transparency. On the other hand, unlike gold-backing Bitcoin-backing is fundamentally different in that there is no counterparty risks. The pegging can not be abused by the backers. For this reason Bitcoin is the perfect reserve currency. Bitcoin could never survive as a high-fee settlement currency because high fees would arise due to block size rationing, not because transactions should naturally cost that much for technical reasons. Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive. Yes, getting there is a difficult technical problem to solve. Deal with it.
High-fee? This is not what I am suggesting, more like high-volume. Block size rationing are a whole different debate. |
|
|
|
how do you propose the Bitcoin miners get paid over the long run on the MC when the block rewards have been diminished and all the tx's are occurring on the SC's?
Miners will continue mining both chains. The much larger transactions not requiring privacy and/or instant confirmation will be taking place on the more secure mainchain. Miners will be paid from processing transactions on every chain working in synergy. over the long run they will have to as block rewards diminish and all tx's are occurring on SC's
Stop using hyperboles, no not all of the transactions will occur on the sidechains. Moreover, no they will not have to choose between the two. They can continue mining both. I really fail to see your argument here. if they were neutral, they wouldn't be insisting on a change in the source code which uniquely benefits their for profit business model.
Insisting? I have read a proposition but have not seen sign of insistence. Their business model is innovation on top of the sidechain "protocol". They have no incentive to compete with Bitcoin since by all account they are planning to leverage it. Bitcoin is vital to their business model. |
|
|
|
those who actually use BTC on a daily basis, as opposed to those hodling, will be encouraged to move to the SC's to perform their tx's b/c of the innovations of privacy and microtransactions. those miners on the SC's will be the one's getting paid the tx fees from these users instead of the miners who elect to stay behind on the BTC MC. that's not good for Bitcoin. that's where the draining the life out of Bitcoin comes from as miners will have to defect to the SC to get paid over time.
...
i think he's saying, and correct me if i'm wrong, that it's unethical for Blockstream to capitalize on Bitcoin's success by creating SC's as a competitor effectively. especially when the SC's have the chance to destroy the MC.
Then Bitcoin becomes the central clearing house, reserve & store of value chain while other chains are left to operate daily transactions for better efficiency. People have been proposing this very idea for awhile but assumed the transactions would be handled off-chain by semi-centralized entities. Sidechain removes the need for that. Miners can mine BTC & the sidechain. I'm not sure where you get the idea they have to choose between the two. As for your last point, I categorically disagree. Sidechains are a neutral, technological proposition. If Blockstream profit from them it is because they will have shown to be considerably useful for the development of blockchain platforms, not because it competes with Bitcoin, this makes no sense. |
|
|
|
above is the reason, I disagree with what you are suggesting, bitcoin is the asset ledger, money is not the token but memory, you don't own bitcoin, you control a % of the asset ledger. Balance in value and security is maintained by miners making economic value judgments. For PoW to be rewarded appropriately to preserve the network and the distributed allocated of control, miners need to be incentivised . Nodes are incentivised to preserve the ledger because they have value in it, Miners are incentivised to wright to that ledger in lieu of a Block rewards.
this is a dynamic equilibrium but in general if the Bitcoin network grows (number of users) one can expect the utility to grow as it has, (thanks Peter-R) according to Metacafe's law if it grows faster then the mining reward diminishes, then one expects competition in mining to produce coins (miners - create "credit" in the immutable memory ledger called the block reward). What is expected to happen is: 1) innovation in mining efficiency to make better use of the limited and costly resources and energy; 2) miners will use any increase in efficiency to consume all available resource - Jevons paradox gives us a hit of what could be. if not for diminishing rewards to eventual just the cost of writing tx.
in short efficiency in mining innovation is responsible for the hashrate, and the price of bitcoin is reasonable for the amount of energy burned. (energy being important as it is the root of all economic activity and productivity) PoW efficiency is a highly contentious issue among many in other threads, and there too the economics is also not well understood as opponents argue the energy burned and wasted while its clear to those who see it it is is not wasted and the dynamic and economics are sound.
If you tie other assets to the blockchain, by locking bitcoin in, you in effect are reducing bitcoins network and growing another network the SC, what happens then is the value grows in the other network, according to Metacafe's law, and the Bitcoin network is diminished. The result is lower block rewards, and less incentive to mine, all the while bitcoin holders can exchange into the new network further reducing Bitcoins value.
Bitcoin is a success precisely for all the reasons that make it, but a AltChain that leverages the value out of bitcoin, by differentiating bitcoin the currency form bitcoin the ledger, is created not as a competing innovation but as a for profit idea. truly competing ideas compete 1:1 head to head like alts, they dont peg 1:1 and drain the life out of the host.
We have the tech to do secure trust less off Blockchain micro transaction with technologies like micro payment channels, and we have the ability to create secured trust free BTC funds in an exchange or contract environment.
Now, that, is a well opinionated, sensible and valid argument for the danger of SC. I had never considered it from that angle and it does make a lot of sense. None of that conspiracy theory, whale speculative attack, developer collusion tinfoil hat type of stuff. I do have some questions though The result is lower block rewards, and less incentive to mine, all the while bitcoin holders can exchange into the new network further reducing Bitcoins value. How do you explain lower block reward? My understanding is block reward remains the same no matter the size of the mining infrastructure. Also, I don't see how 1:1 peg drains the lift out of the host. Think of the main chain as a reserve account and sidechains as checking account. A well designed, 1:1 peg of Bitcoin that works in synergy with the main chain does not diminish the network IMO. These chains are effectively sub-chains. Here is a rational proposition : You have the Bitcoin main-chain and two sidechains : one for privacy and one for micro-transactions. Do you not agree that these can work in synergy and ultimately add value to the network by being supported by the same underlying currency (or technically BTC and BTC-peg). In fact, there is more incentives more miners to mine considering the expected increase in transactions and effective use of the network. From my point of view it certainly is more beneficial to BTC than having Bitcoin and two other alt-coins that serve these features. I also fail to understand your arguments that these chains (in my example) would work as "for-profit" ideas. |
|
|
|
http://siliconangle.tv/cubeconversations-ted-rogers-xapo/The guys at Xapo have the clearest vision out of any of the major Bitcoin companies IMO. They are spot on and great spokespeople for Bitcoin. Rarely do we hear these type of guys say "hold on to your Bitcoins, they're going to be worth more"
|
|
|
|
Very well then. I'm sorry. Carry on with your billionaire fantasies.
There you go again. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. So how long should I hodl my btc until I become a billionaire? It's ironic how someone who brings logic to the debate is dismissed as a troll by your likes, yet the one who spouts delusion is defended and justified, all because of greed. Depends on how many one has... It could happen to people with 4 digits amount in maybe 20-25 years Do you think it's impossible for someone to become a billionaire holding BTC? Satoshi was a billionaire for a couple of days ! |
|
|
|
Yes, I imagine this very thing to become the standard before too long because all the companies not doing this will lose almost all business and go bust. I'm very impressed by BitReserve. I don't have any incentive to use them but I can see how they could become a MAJOR player in this place. Their service looks and feel very professional, kind of Circle-like. Can't wait for these two and some others to launch marketing campaigns in 2015 |
|
|
|
So you agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and all the other alternatives are still only "in theory" |
|
|
|
Too many people know about bitcoin already.
TOO MANY he said  |
|
|
|
This isn't doing anything to promotion the innovation SC are supposed to represent.
I haven't read of one example where they provided a any economic innovation that cannot be done with existing tech.
Instead some chose to insult me by PM than give comment to my posts.
And I haven't read one reasonable reason why Sidechains should absolutely not happen. Only farfetched scenarios that necessitate collusion of the majority of the network to happen. Given the obvious value proposition of the different aspects of sidechains (which you are not honest if you choose to ignore) I would say it is only fair to give the runner a chance to prove itself. |
|
|
|
fundamentally, i disagree with the core observation of the Sidechain Whitepaper which originally stated ( interestingly, it seems they've changed it): "the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfas i've said since the start of my participation in Bitcoin: Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked and intertwined with its blockchain. the blockchain is nothing without the currency. i'd also flip that around by saying that Bitcoin the currency is nothing without its blockchain. given all the potential risks and complexities introduced by Sidechains, are they something we should be serious about? But they are not saying that in the way you suggest they are. Their point is not that Bitcoin the blockchain doesn't need "bitcoin" the asset but that the asset should not have to be tied only to the Bitcoin blockchain but could, conceptually, be used on other blockchains. |
|
|
|
Actually, in the above gvt attack scenario, arb bots help funnel BTC to scBTC faster thus increasing the speed at which the SC gains dominance.
Speaking of government attack scenarios, BitPay just hired Emperor Palpatine:  this guy is a trojan horse and doesn't even know it  I'm not sure what you're saying is he a government Trojan or an unsuspecting Bitcoin Trojan for government? The latter |
|
|
|
Absolutely. It was always a monopoly, first, the mining monopoly, then, the lucky investors monolopy. So we have KnC being the monolopy of the mining, and retards that have no idea what they are doing but found themselves on wealth by pure chance
do you believe all that shit you are writing please tell me about the "original" mining monopoly please tell me about how KnC is a mining monopoly right now |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
