Ok, so you can have your Stockchain for things like this, but for people who use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be a headache to have to constantly exchange currencies just because you can't have all of it in the same chain.
For certain I am not advocating that one should be constantly having to shift funds around from blockchain to blockchain but just that having more than one kind of blockchain is a form of "insurance" against the failure of any particular one. How can the Bitcoin's blockchain fail, considering the amount of nodes and miners connected today? You would need a meteorite or something to make it fail. |
|
|
|
How come?
Because it would allow you to create a tx with a very low fee (that would have little chance of confirming in days) and then replace it with another tx with a higher fee. Easy money! What? Fee replacement only allows you to replace the fee, how can that bring a totally new transaction into play? Also, when I said you can accept unconfirmed transactions most of the time, I said “most” because you can predict that a transaction won't be confirmed and reject those. |
|
|
|
I, like most people in the world, do not have such things as stocks. Why would this be relevant?
Because in the future stocks will be on blockchains also as will property titles, etc. I would rather that we don't have the world's entire assets relying upon one single blockchain. Ok, so you can have your Stockchain for things like this, but for people who use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be a headache to have to constantly exchange currencies just because you can't have all of it in the same chain. |
|
|
|
Because double-spending is the easiest thing in the world.
With fee replacement it actually would be extremely easy for anyone to do. How come? |
|
|
|
For most stuff, it's safe to accept an unconfimed transaction and be happy with it. I don't understand why people argue about this non-issue.
Really - if we end up adding transaction fee replacement (which is expected to occur) then a lot of people are going to be stealing an awful amount of stuff if vendors are silly enough to accept unconfirmed transactions. Because double-spending is the easiest thing in the world. |
|
|
|
I have more than one bank account, but all of them are in the same currency (MXN). I don't want to have to exchange currencies just to be able to buy a cup of coffee.
Clearly you don't have much in the way of serious investments (where are your stocks and property?). I, like most people in the world, do not have such things as stocks. Why would this be relevant? |
|
|
|
Having multiple blockchains that work in different ways is just a "sensible" approach or do you keep all of your assets in one single bank account?
I have more than one bank account, but all of them are in the same currency (MXN). I don't want to have to exchange currencies just to be able to buy a cup of coffee. |
|
|
|
Also Bitcoin is simply not suited to many, many things mostly because confirmations take too long.
For most stuff, it's safe to accept an unconfimed transaction and be happy with it. I don't understand why people argue about this non-issue. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong,
Also, this is pretty arrogant. |
|
|
|
|
Where are you storing the sidechain? My question still applies.
|
|
|
|
Yes, toilet paper is very anonymous.
Hm, I'm pretty sure you can get a DNA sample from a used piece of toilet paper. |
|
|
|
I don't think satoshi would have a web design that terrible.
Green background with white letters, really?
Comic book artist. Not webpage designer. You need graphic design knowledge to be a good comic book artist. |
|
|
|
I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch. I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake. It was never stated that the block size is final. It is stated that the number of coins is final. See the difference? Just keep repeating that yourself. OK. Give me the source where Satoshi says the block size is final and I will change my mind. |
|
|
|
I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch. I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake. It was never stated that the block size is final. It is stated that the number of coins is final. See the difference? |
|
|
|
STAHP  |
|
|
|
If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.
If I buy a server I fear that somebody can hack me and then use all available space I paid for to upload child porn, without them spending a thing. |
|
|
|
"Making a different Bitcoin that can do X, Y and Z" is in essence making an altcoin.
Why? You're forgetting about the network effect. Applying changes to Bitcoin, which many people already use, is different than creating a new altcoin nobody knows. |
|
|
|
Sidechains can alleviate your space issue.
I don't get how this makes sense. People propose sidechains so that the main blockchain is not enormous. But... where are you proposing to store the sidechains? Because moving information from one place to another doesn't make it disappear. Maybe you can say that sidechains don't need to be on the same servers as the main blockchain. But even then, to secure these sidechains you would need a similar amount of servers storing and validating these chains, and it's just the same. Not in the same space, but taking up space anyway. |
|
|
|
Has Gavin ever released a coin in altsection? Has he ever shown to be able to actually create a coin?
I would want him to actually release an altcoin and show if there is actual demand for it. I'm not sure he's able to even create a longterm viable product. This would be the opportunity for him.
How would creating an altcoin and proving there's demand for it relate to modifying Bitcoin in such a way that more transactions can be handled? I see no connection. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
