I cannot see any noteworthy economic disadvantages with sidechains.
I can think of a big one. You cannot use Proof of Work on a sidechain. Therefore you accept security and/or counterparty risk. It will up to the sidechain user to determine how much risk to accept. |
|
|
|
... tyfu
You edit my objections, you aren't fooling anybody. Let's forget all that. I want to hijack this thread a moment. I posit that TOR is nothing but an experimental gimmick to offer obfuscation, nothing more and that HD wallets are a better solution for Bitcooin transactions. Sure, cryptonote and other signing schemes also add obfuscation, but HD wallets give you the ability to use different addresses for every transaction. This serves to cast doubt about the ownership of keys. You still want to use obfuscation schemes to hide your IP address perhaps, but payment channels can exist in many types of protocols. They are small enough bandwidth that they could be handled by any radio freq mesh, satellite, or even ELF. They can be acoustical, steganographic, or polarized. There are no limits to the types of obfuscation schemes for payment channels. As long as they are hidden, the HD wallet can do the rest. |
|
|
|
This is an interesting way to approach the 'real' price of Bitcoin... I've seen many people do similar things. I guess one of the most prominent being rpietila, you know the guy with the castle and the pink car. Haha, man... he's awesome!
He predicted 1 Million per coin back then. I wonder where does he stand nowadays and if he still believes that will happen and when. He claims he dumped a lot of his bitcoins for monero. He may have been pumping and dumping. |
|
|
|
reasonable discussion The mistake that you, and quite a few other people, are making is that what makes money security has something to do with transactions. It doesn't. Monetary security is about maintaining the quantity. When you own some bitcoins, you know precisely what fraction of the bitcoin ledger belongs to you, and that's why Bitcoin is value. What you do or do not spend it on is immaterial. The best money is the one that provides the most quantity security and is used by the most people. There is no reason whatsoever to prefer any money except the best money, which is why the market will eventually converge to a single money. "No reason whatsoever" is the kind of snotty absolutism we expect from a Fundamentalist Monopolist. ad hom You may have no reason whatsoever for using altcoins, but others certainly do. That's why our alt sub was promoted and expanded.
"Best money" depends on the context. Traditionally you preserve value with gold and transact with silver, making small change in copper.
Those are not examples of using money. You didn't specify coins or bullion. You don't "preserve value with gold and transact with silver, making small change in copper." Bitcoin can have the lion's share at the top of the Pareto distribution, but we should expect a long tail of other crypto with varying degrees of suitability for substitution. If people prefer to use coins based on a silly picture of a dog or constellations of prime numbers, they will. You need to accept that and move on.
Sure, some folks are scammed. Don't justify it with bad statistics. The problem with maintaining BTC's monetary security and the GigaBloat fork is that huge blocks will have predictable and unpredictable negative effects on the network.
Pure strawman. You have zero evidence to support that conjecture. Many do not with to risk BTC's secure store of value function to chase the impossible dream of every Coke machine, laundromat, and hot dog stand transacting directly on the One True Blockchain.
Said nobody. We were sold Bitcoins backed by a defensible network accessible via TOR or other slow/hardened connections. Changing the quality of that social contract is no better changing the quantity 21e6 (The Sacred Number).
Bitcoin HD wallets are better than TOR. |
|
|
|
We can't know the price of the bid unless they publicly say it
Can we find out how much the gubbermit made, so thy don't launder the money? |
|
|
|
I too often get lost in excessive abstraction, but I'm getting back to keeping it real.
If I tried this, would I end up floating in a wormhole?  |
|
|
|
Capitalism is a double edged sword. The risk of the profit motive drawing companies to do terrible things, endangering society in the long term, is very real, both environmentally and technologically. Essentially companies would justify mass surveillance, militarism, or pervasive AI simply because it is lucrative. Today, too many powerful corporations conflate what is lucrative, with what is practical for society.
Exactly. Now corporations have legal rights to free speech and money is declared to be speech. An AI existing as a corporation would be free to make and spend money and hire lawyers to sue if these rights are impinged. Not only would machines not care about what is practical for society, they could lobby for legislation and fund their own political campaigns with machine friendly representatives. |
|
|
|
|
Apparently this is the wrong forum. The Bitcoin 2.0 forums have discussions about these.
|
|
|
|
I'm exploring the notion of Bitcoin as a tool for smart contracts as they apply to online games. So far all online gaming is done through central servers. The rules for poker are clear and should be easy enough to program into a decentralized contract. The roles of the dealer would need to be enforced as well as the players so all players share equal stake and a dealer that quit would be penalized. Confederacy would need to be eliminated through randomization and anonymization. Thoughts?
Isn't this the basic thought behind ethereum? One of the uses of ethereum may be online gaming. But where does game theory come into your question? I suppose Ethereum could be used for the game design when it is released, but the cryptographic security would still require a staked cryptocurrency. Game theory is central to all decentralized and distributed operations. Currently only centralized solutions are used for the strategic decision making wrt gambling. They will require a consensus scheme that creates trustless fair play. Game theory also needs to deal with cheating and metadata, so additional security measures will be required. I'm sure there are other issues created by making games decentralized. So far, nobody has come even close to creating such a device. Yet this may be a crucial implementation for Bitcoin acceptance as a technology. |
|
|
|
|
The damage is done. The newbie troll armies have all but destroyed any meaningful discussions by flooding the forum with repetitive and worn out topics. In fact, the forum should just close and be archived. At least Reddit doesn't allow duplicate posts. While old posts can sometimes become topical again, necro-posting with valueless comments isn't possible on Reddit. The Libertarians have proven how much damage they can do to the Commons by allowing free unrestricted access.
|
|
|
|
once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself
so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin
You mean they would altruistically agree on an altcoin that benefits all machines? not really, because it should come from their own construction, and should be better in any way versus the last one(bitcoin in this case) What I am asking is if all machines will agree to use an altcoin? Don't you think that if they didn't like Bitcoin, they would just make thousands of altcoins to each their own liking? |
|
|
|
Forgive me for being naive, but why would bitcoin make that possible? Wouldn't you be able to do that without bitcoin?
Good question. I had never heard of smart contracts before the advent of Bitcoin. They are the foundation of Bitcoin 2.0 development. I would like to know how it can be done using decentralized and distributed provably fair consensus contracts outside traditional Tort law. |
|
|
|
|
I'm exploring the notion of Bitcoin as a tool for smart contracts as they apply to online games. So far all online gaming is done through central servers. The rules for poker are clear and should be easy enough to program into a decentralized contract. The roles of the dealer would need to be enforced as well as the players so all players share equal stake and a dealer that quit would be penalized. Confederacy would need to be eliminated through randomization and anonymization. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not dead, there's just not big of a market for it as it used to be. But bitcoin mining is dead I can tell you that..
 Orly? |
|
|
|
once i've read, that the first thing a machine does, is to create a more powerful/better machine of itself
so a machine will probably make a better bitcoin
You mean they would altruistically agree on an altcoin that benefits all machines? |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man. So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place. Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs. But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try. So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right? No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well. A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad. Have you ever seen a machine go wild? Car makers recall their vehicles because of malfunctioning on a rather regular basis. Some of these malfunctions can actually be lethal, e.g. the unintended acceleration of the Audi 5000 model which was linked to 6 deaths and approximately 700 accidents in 1982-1987. Those machines were broken or defective. They didn't go wild. Besides, they all had safety mechanisms the operator failed to utilize such as neutral gear and brakes. |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man. So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place. Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs. But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try. So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right? No, quite the contrary. Machines' inability to break laws on their own free will and discretion (because of the lack thereof) doesn't make them more trustworthy, since in any case you would have to trust people who programmed them and which also will be able to hack it as well. A machine can go wild and this would be even more lethal that a human going mad. Have you ever seen a machine go wild? |
|
|
|
What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.
But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second. You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. I see this as a chance of building another service. Offer metadata from the pruned blocks. The way to go is to continuously design, build and improve, not to limit things. For every issue there is a solution that can be deployed. By avoiding issues and by refusing to research and develop new stuff we are putting ourselves in a bubble which will hinder our evolution. That's very zen. You can sell more by making less. Groovy. That's right up there with increasing value by keeping block space scarce. That's like saying the deeper the hole, the more dirt it holds. |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man. So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place. Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs. But men, unlike machines, can willingly break the laws imposed on them if they see it more "appropriate" for their needs, right? At the same time, both camps cannot break the universal laws of nature but humans can at least try. So morally speaking, machines would be better to trust with money because they won't break laws to suit their whims like men, right? |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? I am sure we will all agree it to be the man who is more greedy. The machine, just fulfills the intent of the man. So it in fact boils down to who is more efficient at fulfilling the intents of the man, the man himself or the machine? As a matter of fact, the machine can be made more efficient than the man, but it is not that simple since it is the man who made the machine in the first place. Men and machines both live by rules. Men calls them laws, machines use programs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
