I cannot imagine that there will ever exist somebody who can hold 1 copy of all world transactions. (if bitcoin is used by everyone) and to keep bitcoin decentralized you need at least 5 copies. (100,000 copies is better :-) )
If this were desired, what would prevent it? |
|
|
|
Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )
I think we all agree that NOW is not the basis of this concern. |
|
|
|
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage. I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC. Except that we know from experience that this is not true. MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC. Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better. |
|
|
|
Think of it, govSC may use compromised cryptographic primitives giving them a back door on all the money.
Then they essentially own key escrow on all the coins and can also automatically tax them as needed. Seize criminal assets etc.
That pretty much solves all the government's problems.
I agree with you. I'll not keep my BTC in govSC. But I would rather trade on gov secured exchange than on MtGox. If SC are implemented in Bitcoin then Bitcoin is my first choice. Exchange security doesn't require a government though... because multikey cryptography, or things like the Counterparty DEX. So its a false dichotomy in either gov secured exchange vs MtGox. |
|
|
|
Now, I'm getting paranoid. :-)
SC's architecture:
<bitcoin>
<us-govSC>
<govscBTC />
<govscUSD />
<exchangeSC>
<mergerSC />
</exchange>
</gowSC>
<china-govSC />
<!-- wild-wild-west -->
<exchangeSC>
<mergerSC />
</exchange>
</bitcoin>
govSC is asymetric 2wp => GOV can veto if you can go in/out
all govSC are secured by GOV mining HW (cetralized servers)
What a shitfest. This is precisely the problem we have today with altcoins multiplied by a thousand. Think of it, govSC may use compromised cryptographic primitives giving them a back door on all the money. Then they essentially own key escrow on all the coins and can also automatically tax them as needed. Seize criminal assets etc. That pretty much solves all the government's problems. |
|
|
|
|
"Remember Remember the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
On the 4th of November, the US votes.
What happens on the 5th?
|
|
|
|
you're not reading properly. a SC with a sidecoin can also accept scBTC. it's the scBTC that have the 2wp, as you say. therefore, any miner mining the SC gets 3 revenue streams; scBTC and sidecoin tx fees and sidecoin block rewards. this is why they will MM and eventually directly mine if enough scBTC appears on the SC.
I don't believe this is quite exact. A SC with a sidecoin will reward BTC locked into this sidechain with a deterministic amount of scBTC (not 1:1). For example 1 BTC will get you 5000 scBTC. From that point on these sidecoins have a floating exchange rate. If the sidechain fails to attract speculators/users than the exchange rate is more expensive ex: it now cost you 10000 scBTC to redeem 1 BTC. For that reason, sidecoins are exactly like altcoins the dev can design the peg and the SC with any properties he wants. he could design the exact scenario i outline; a SC with a 1:1 peg for BTC <--> scBTC that also issues a block reward for a new sidecoin while at the same time processing scBTC and sidecoin tx for fees. this would definitely attract MM initially, and if highly successful, defecting Bitcoin miners who direct mine the SC. The moment an additional coined is issued on the sidechain that cannot be redeemed 1:1 with BTC ALL the coins on that sidechain become sidecoins. What is the best way to assure that your SC dev does not change this 1:1 ratio after BTC have been burned to the SC, fork non-conspiring miners out, burst mine the ratio up to 1:100 and then having 99% of the SC coins, cash in 99% of the BTC on the chain? Doesn't this make it just that much easier to scam BTC? There is no peg. There is no spoon. |
|
|
|
how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?
Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's". Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless. why wouldn't a SC with an innovation like faster tx times attract all the tx's? and why wouldn't the scBTC stay scBTC with the perceived risk free put (2wp)? and if i'm right, they will be rewarded by staying on the SC b/c the price of scBTC on that SC will start to rise faster in fiat terms as the SC becomes more and more successful. People keep talking about a peg. As if there were such a thing. One of these days there will be an SC with some very useful feature, but the devs used compromised cryptographic primitives, and can factor out SC private keys and run off with all the BTC that moved into that chain. If this is done as a long enough con, it could become an existential risk to bitcoin, yes? (both the SC and Bitcoin could be essentially destroyed). |
|
|
|
Sounds like he is saying, in effect, 'a reserve currency'. That is exactly what BTC would be in a solution involving more than one sidechain.
tv, how can Bitcoin act as a reserve currency in the presence of multiple SC's that are sucking BTC and miners away from the MC thus decreasing it's security model and therefore it's value? think about 2140 when the block reward has gone to 0 and Bitcoin miners are supposed to rely on tx fees exclusively but they are being outcompeted by a SC that is processing all their tx's b/c everyone has migrated over to it b/c of an innovation? This will happen a lot sooner if we get the level of transactions that Gavin is anticipating. Currently TX fees are 1/300th of the total reward. If we get 40x the transactions in a decade, the fees with be anywhere from equivalent to as low as 1/3 the reward (the coinbase block reward will go down twice - maybe thrice by then so 1/4 or 1/8). This would be about 80 TX per second. Visa does about 2000/second on average today. However if we get accompanying price appreciation for BTC along with such adoption, we may likely have fee reduction by an order of magnitude or two, which could put us back to only fees = 1/100th the block reward. |
|
|
|
|
Personally I am considerably less worried about the effect of sidechains on Bitcoin, than I am about their effect on Bitcoiners.
However, I do not appreciate wanton ignoring of risks and claiming "don't worry it will be fine"
Whenever I hear that it is a good reason to hold my wallet tight and walk the other direction.
|
|
|
|
- 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.
- 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.
You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS. But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'
Please spell it out for us laymen  I'm not a fan of building in extrapolating to protocol definitions.  Even if they aren't exponential. I'm debating this with Gavin privately, but there is an ELI5 of it here: http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htmGavin agrees with me that there is no way to know today what the future of technology will be. He offers what is essentially his best guess. Where we disagree is whether the block sizes of the future will be useful in determining what the Max Block Size should be. (I say yes, he remains sceptical) Using a flexible limit that is to some extent dependent on actual future block sizes has benefits such as: 1) It reduces (but does not eliminate) the role of a future arbitrator (a point of centralization) needing to decide when the variable is wrong and what it should be instead.. 2) Brings us closer to the Milton Freidman ideal of a mechanistic system. 3) Discourages bandwidth attacks. 4) Having a flexible lower bound to which the protocol adheres, may allow for a more accommodating higher bound to manage for growth. Since there is a mitigation for bursting issues, the upper bound may be higher as it isn't a default value but an additional safeguard. 5) Potential for encouraging active full nodes (another aspect of scalability). |
|
|
|
The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise. They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings.
The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest. Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit. So much FUD and misdirection in this post. Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective. Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory. There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization". Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them. They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord. The "We need the 1MB limit because TOR" folks were fairly clear on their problems causes and ways to deal with it. (Well, they didn't really address ways to deal with it, which IMHO would be network compression in the first instance) http://keepbitcoinfree.org/Peter Todd, et al. Network compression would resolve many bandwidth issues for miners, though the Max BlockSize "transaction quota" would measure after decompression, so the limit can be higher without becoming problematic for bandwidth. (Compression can also be assisting storage issues in the same way). More discussion of it and other proposals here: http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm |
|
|
|
|
I think it is sad that the poll uses "Halloween" to mark the day rather than "THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SATOSHI WHITEPAPER"
|
|
|
|
|
What is the best way to get started with this if one hasn't done it before?
|
|
|
|
Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP
why would price do this?  People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down? No. Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins. wow, listen up everyone! SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up! never down! this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. otoh, please explain to all of us in detail how SC's, real or scam, can only make the BTC price go up? The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact. In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive. It is economically naive to fail to consider that a feature that adds value in one economic condition, may subtract it in another, and that movement of money may follow this with a lag, sometimes a very significant lag due to practical constraints. Further naivete would be in imaging that this is not happening all the time, and that this effect is commonly exploited. "Economists" here are contemplating only static ideal cases, and implementing regulatory changes in spite of these concerns. Changing the code is changing what ultimately regulates Bitcoin. With this particular change, it is not so easy to undo it if it turns out to be a mistake. Many Bitcoin may be destroyed. People will make mistakes of trust. There are many new risks with SC. Lets address them rather than pretend that they don't exist. |
|
|
|
I would like to donate 167 gold for the obelisk not only 10!!! Please update!
OK. But this is a special case as you are a member of the Royal Household... others may only donate 1% of their gold If it is not yet too late, may we update our donation to our current 1%? |
|
|
|
|
Too late for my rebids too.
So many meetings today.
Congratulations to the winners and my new neighbors.
|
|
|
|
In China, you can buy a house.
In China there are whole newly towns built towns without people. And due to the 1 child policy, they are facing severe population shrinking soon. They should buy Neft instead. It will hold value better. |
|
|
|
Looks cool.
Hey ya BAY. Does this game play for XMR like huntercoin? Not in the same way, no. It is a sort of faucet though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
