It's too bad that bitcoin allowed dedicated silicon (FPGA/ASIC) to participate. If they had adapted to prevent it there still would be large farms of CPU/GPU miners. But it would be a more level playing field and there would be more use of having that much computational power in play that could also be solving real problems and not just generating a lot of heat and having an overabundance of SHA256 brute force engines lying around.
But in reality it is almost impossible to create a proof-of-work mining algorythm that will forever remain ASIC-resistant so that point is moot @Pierre_Rochard
Lastly, energy consumption by ASIC #bitcoin mining is not wasteful, energy consumption by those who whine about it is. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/527846975769956352Jon Matonis @jonmatonis ·
The time has come for me to resign as Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation. Thank you for all of your passionate support! More soon. Something big is brewing. I expect he will join the board of a possibly TBA Bitcoin company. Might be announced no later than by next week at Money2020.
|
|
|
|
I've never said this before but I will now. It's my thread and I'll talk about whatever I like.
If you don't like it, go away. No one is forcing you to read what I write.
 whatever just realize I'm not the only one tired of arguments that lead nowhere, it's kinda hard keeping up with your delusions. funny others have brought up this point but you didn't address it and told them to "go away" like you did with me. i really must've gotten your panties in a bunch  |
|
|
|
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  |
|
|
|
Ok, now I'm on a roll. Here's your solution to arb bots.
stop it. I'm saying it in the most friendly way, what you are doing is not healthy, you are simply trying too hard. you can carry on. but you might as well create a thread. your infatuation for SC doomsday scenario is taking too much place in this thread, as others have mentioned (I recognize I am also guilty of entertaining this back n forth) i appreciate and enjoy your market analysis pertaining to this thread's original topic so lets go back to that. if you create a different thread where you can sum up your scenarios for SC attacks and update your theory (which changes daily) I may discuss it there but from now on let's try and keep it on topic |
|
|
|
why are you arguing against a conclusion that paper itself talked about, that being a migration to a new SC?
arguing? where did you read me arguing there? I have provided what is, in my opinion, the only context by which this migration could happen & effectively damage BTC. |
|
|
|
there are a lot of speculators that can be sold an innovation that really isn't one. such as demurrage coin everyone keeps talking about. you might not think it's a good innovation but if all of a sudden you start seeing large #'s of scBTC appearing on its SC along with a rising price, you yourself said those would be indications of a succeeding SC. that would be all it takes for some other speculators to pile on.
and in this case, where an innovation is marginal if not a bad idea, the original pumping whale might just do a pump and dump.
lots of speculators != market majority that's another flaw in your argument. the market and liquidity will decide what is right for itself, but at this point speculators will never drive it to champion a coin that is flawed, whichever way. the only thing that can disrupt Bitcoin and effectively eliminate it, at this point, is a more important innovation. one that would improve on Bitcoin the way Bitcoin improves on gold. if this happen I will welcome it with open arms and speculators that will have spawned this movement will deserve all of their reward. |
|
|
|
You guys think Money 20/20 will cause any significant movements?
Winklevoss give keynote
Lawsky giving keynote
Bitcoin world is going to be there
Lots of big names as well
wow I didn't know the Winks would be giving a keynote Yes I do expect great news to come out of this conference NEXT WEEK IS CRITICAL ! |
|
|
|
well then, here's a thought argument.
let's say those 2 factors balance each other out exactly, ie, half of BTC holders convert BTC to scBTC while the other half stay put and half the miners currently mining BTC switch to primarily mining scBTC. in that case, then i say the Bitcoin MC still loses. which is really the risk i'm trying to identify, that being any damage a SC might inflict on Bitcoin MC. it loses b/c the SC has succeeded in weakening Bitcoin's security by 50% subjecting it to possible 51% attacks and volatility (which will happen if any weakness in Bitcoin itself is detected by the market). as volatility picks up, the price will drop.
not true. using your base case. you have now essentially created two liquidity market. a transparent ann a private one. these are the only two markets that can work in synergy. both could thrive without effectively damaging the other. as long as people find value in transparence and in privacy and there will be a market for both such market. I actually believe this is something that could very plausibly happen. |
|
|
|
They will not unless they have an incentive to do so.
you're failing to read my posts. small miners struggling to mine BTC right now mainly at a loss would gladly switch to a SC that is producing cheap sidecoins in the hope of scooping up large #'s of sidecoin w/o competition while hoping for price appreciation if they see the same things you said would result in a price rise of scBTC, that being an increasing #scBTC's appearing on the SC (from the whale pump) along with a rise in the price of those same scBTC from speculative buying on an exchange AND an innovation. remember, the SC is designed to be superior. I consider another flaw in your argument to be your casual dismissal of the force of arbitrage. You are basically suggesting the network effect of the sidechain would grow faster than arbitrage could keep up with. Considering the ever-present risks of locking your BTC on a sidechain until the majority of the infrastructure jumps boat, I consider this highly improbable |
|
|
|
(with sufficient confidence to justify the inconvenience you describe)
this is what it comes down to if you ask me. if the innovation and the backing of this new sidecoin is so important the value proposition outweight ALL of the risks involved with such a migration than what the hell let's do it. but remember cypherdoc, you have said it yourself, there are numerous and considerable risks and friction in such a movement |
|
|
|
if Blockstream is successful at convincing mining pools to freely merge mining from the beginning, the SC can function securely while cultivating the innovation. once proven stable, if i were a whale, i'd go for the pump knowing i have a risk free put.
Are you confused  I'm tired of going in circles with you  Remember your "new" base case is one where there is now a sidechain block subsidy with issuance of new assets. these are not secured by the proposed merged mining. The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put" i see what you're saying now. the SC has to mine the sidecoin or the scBTC, not both at the same time? good point. but didn't the paper say that multiple assets could be secured on the same SC at the same time? wtf? from the paper Of course, sidechains are able to support their own assets, which they would be responsible for maintaining the scarcity of I think you are right that merge-mining solves this in a way BUT only if the majority of miners decide to mine the coin. They will not unless they have an incentive to do so. |
|
|
|
and you didn't answer my question; are you associated with Blockstream in any way?
No, sir. |
|
|
|
if Blockstream is successful at convincing mining pools to freely merge mining from the beginning, the SC can function securely while cultivating the innovation. once proven stable, if i were a whale, i'd go for the pump knowing i have a risk free put.
Are you confused I'm tired of going in circles with you Remember your "new" base case is one where there is now a sidechain block subsidy with issuance of new assets. these are not secured by the proposed merged mining. The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put" |
|
|
|
I tried but I don't why "whale starts pumping" means in the context of sidechains. The peg is built-in. If a sidechain was pegged 1:1 how would a whale cause the sidechain to change in value and why would people pay a premium as apposed to locking BTC themselves to use the sidechain?
he's scared whales are gonna pump the better coin  |
|
|
|
are you associated with their company in any way?
the only association I have with them is that I recognize the potential added value of sidechains and would like to give the runner a chance considering its potential upside could far exceed the doomsday scenario you propose. |
|
|
|
not at all. the real key is that a SC will be a nascent currency plus an innovation with plenty of potential. a whale could easily jerk the price upwards and then get follow on from other whales or speculators willing to be the new early adopters of a "better" currency.
Why have they not done it with an alt-coin then Much like smooth has indicated, you worst case scenario is quite literally an alt-coin taking over. Sidechain didn't create that problem. No your farfetched "risk-free put" is not a valid argument, it is full of holes. The only risk-free position is on the BTC mainchain. At this point the only risk we witness a migration of the kind you suggest is if the destination is considered by the market to be as secure as BTC and offering an innovation so important the value proposition is too large to ignore. It is terribly naive to believe a "whale" could ignite such a movement. I don't think there is any predicament at all. If the side chain is objectively a better chain as determined by stakeholders, then it is simply time to move on. There is not necessarily any reason try to try to backport everything to the original chain. BTC will have fulfilled its useful purpose of giving birth to the improved scBTC/BTC2.
you know what, it turns out I agree with this 100% and this is another reality for which cypherdoc has no answer |
|
|
|
and i'm impressed at what an idiot you are continuing to shill for SC's and your willingness to bury your head in the sand.
and why and how did you just happen to pop here on the day the SC paper was released specifically countering my every point and trying to denigrate my position by pointing to the Reddit AMA despite the clear and positive/upvote point count i got? one might think you're associated with them in some way.
in case you hadn't noticed, all of us here are trying to seek the truth despite your presence.
please don't start lieing through your teeths. I have read every single posts from that AMA and your posts were hanging in the sewers of most sub-topics and casually dismissed when engaged by the sidechain developers you are a fear mongerer who tries to stand on arguments that hold no ground and scenarios from fairy tales. |
|
|
|
go back and read my comments from today about this. there seems to be several reasons for a BTC holder to jump to scBTC immediately once a whale starts pumping thru the peg and the price starts rising.
you do realise everyday the economy grows your whale scenario becomes less and less likely |
|
|
|
i just changed my base case according to a helpful comment from HB. so what? it doesn't invalidate the rest of my arguments.
oh nothing, just pointing you moving goal post again. i'm impressed how your imagination can strech to such length to try and poke hole into sidechains. it reminds of reading logs of the forum thread where satoshi first posted the paper. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
