Show Posts
Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away. If it even takes that to protect the sub-system. In the mean time I'll expect many designs to be able to operate just fine but just cannot inflate or deflate while an attack is underway.
In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.) Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally. only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.
In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.) Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally. only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.
You sure are putting a lot of faith in side chains.
The only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.
Greed is the only thing needed for that. Engineers will sort out the details.As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.
How magnanimous of you to allow others to define the problem and solution for you to criticize. Where's your well defined problem and solution?
I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.
You have an interesting prediction on the future of transactions. In fact, the goal is for Bitcoin proper to scale as needed for the types of payments it best serves. It will be much higher than 4-7 tps. Bitcoin only needs to serve where cash would best serve because Bitcoin is cash.None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.
That's like asking scientists when they will be done discovering stuff.All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out. Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.
You contradict yourself. Market forces use numbers by definition. Besides, you are the one with faith based in side chains that will make everything work out. In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods. I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.
TOR has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. TOR was compromised recently. If it was used, it would be in very limited fashion.
Tell me when TOR has ever been compromised by itself and not involving javascript/flash/other useless plugins that you should have OFF exploits, .
I don't think it has ever happened.
and monkeycoin
