100,000 users = 32 GB 7,000,000,000 user = 2,000,000 GB every year => 2,000,000 * $0.03 = $60k /year i know you're better than that with extrapolations. i've seen much higher estimates of userbase; like 2M? anyways, by the time we get to 7B users, storage space is likely to be $0.00003/GB or $60/yr  |
|
|
|
i think Adam's goals are laudable, ie, wanting to expand the universe of assets traded for Bitcoin. The problem I've always seen with the "gold 2.0" viewpoint is that it relies on a bad understanding of history and a worse understanding of economics. Some people think that gold is an example of a free-market store of value that was not also a medium of exchange, but it's not true. During the era where gold was held as a reserve asset and people started exchanging gold-backed notes instead of the gold itself, the sole reason that arrangement worked is because central banks hoarded gold, and their activities were subsidized by the taxing capability of the state. The idea that it's possible to separate a store of value from its medium of exchange function is an illusion that can only be propped up with a substantial expenditure of institutional violence. The last thing I want to see is Bitcoin turned into a system that can only survive under those conditions. If that's Blockstream's plan... I don't get how this is somehow not a problem replicated but solved by sidechains. Why did gold-backed notes appear in the first place? Was it not because of market demand for a more liquid, transactional medium of exchange? Of course this was playing into the hands of banks but gold was not rid of its medium of exchange function so much as people found its natural properties in that regard to be inconvenient and cumbersome. I see the same thing happening now. Replace papernotes with sidechains and central bank for the Bitcoin protocol. In certain ways Bitcoin will function very well as a medium of exchange but the nature of its protocol also results some shortcomings with respect to its utility functions and flexibility as an asset class. What better, more natural, way to address this than sidechains? Unlike the gold/papernotes parallel there is considerably smaller counterparty risk; the "backing" mechanism is enforced on the protocol level. Institutional violence is replaced by maths. Blockstreams goals are not confined to the money function of facilitating "medium of exchange" and "unit of account" as you describe here and as we agreed would be ideal for SC's way back in October, ie , utility chains for faster tx and anon. their stated goal is to facilitate a trading platform whereby SC's would be used to trade all manner of speculative assets such as stocks, bonds, insurance and smart contracts. this confuses and distracts from the money function and SOV that got us here and which i suggest is Bitcoins greatest calling. the other problem i see is that the ideal money functions that would be desirable and achievable CAN be accomplished on MC. probably not changing the 10 min block time though (many think that is a necessary interval for decentralized propagation). but certainly anon and increased block size for scaling. i don't think that risk (hard fork) is as large or gruesome as some suggest. the community has learned to communicate better and can pre-announce any major hard fork updates well in advance to minimize that outcome. but it takes a will and discipline to make it happen along with a setting aside of for-profit aspirations in the name of advancing an open source project. |
|
|
|
i think Adam's goals are laudable, ie, wanting to expand the universe of assets traded for Bitcoin. The problem I've always seen with the "gold 2.0" viewpoint is that it relies on a bad understanding of history and a worse understanding of economics. Some people think that gold is an example of a free-market store of value that was not also a medium of exchange, but it's not true. During the era where gold was held as a reserve asset and people started exchanging gold-backed notes instead of the gold itself, the sole reason that arrangement worked is because central banks hoarded gold, and their activities were subsidized by the taxing capability of the state. The idea that it's possible to separate a store of value from its medium of exchange function is an illusion that can only be propped up with a substantial expenditure of institutional violence. The last thing I want to see is Bitcoin turned into a system that can only survive under those conditions. If that's Blockstream's plan... If I'm reading you correctly, then I agree. It's ludicrous to think you can separate a BTC unit from its blockchain and think it can maintain its value as "fuel" for other asset trading. The blockchain by itself cannot act as "backing" for those units. |
|
|
|
If nothing else for those who view bitcoin as gold2.0 (and I do myself) What exactly do you mean by "gold2.0" If by that you're talking about some kind of rarely-moving thing that acts as a store of value without being a medium of exchange, then what you want is impossible and trying to make it happen will destroy Bitcoin. i think Adam's goals are laudable, ie, wanting to expand the universe of assets traded for Bitcoin. i just think it's premature and is taking the wrong path. first, let Bitcoin establish itself as a global reserve currency, as it is currently doing. then, when the market cap is much larger and outsiders have been forced to buy in, natural market forces will force those assets to be denominated and traded in terms of Bitcoin. this path is highly focused and doesn't require anything more than upgrading Bitcoin on the mainchain, as we just saw with 0.10.0rc1 core and with what Gavin is proposing with IBLT and block size expansion. of course, this requires more hands off, patience, and developmental discipline which, by my observation, is quite rare in the community. |
|
|
|
Brock Pierce is a complete disgrace to the Bitcoin Foundation and for Bitcoin in general. Sorry, but by default a Bitcoin Foundation board member who publically opens his/her mouth should be a shill for Bitcoin and only Bitcoin, nothing else. The Foundation is simply retarded for not seeing that Brock is not helping the cause, but instead hurting it... especially pushing alt coins that are a joke (An altcoin pegged to the dollar? Really?) couldn't have said it better. similarly, the Blockstream argument that advocates separating the BTC unit from its secure blockchain so as to "liberate" its value while "unleashing" it from its "restrictions" is also misguided. |
|
|
|
If you make a commitment to stick around and address all my concerns instead of lobbing in a comment every hundred pages or so then maybe I'll take the effort to repeat everything I've already said. I read a few dozen pages some weeks back, so I think I got a fair flavour of the substantive arguments mixed in now and then. Others seemed to be doing an excellent job of injecting logic and signal so I left it at that. But I am not convinced you are trying to be persuaded, maybe more enjoying the protracted heated discussion Adam ps it only takes a second to trim quotes - the thread'd easier to read if you also would trim! Instead of dismissing my arguments by framing them as having some sort of agenda, perhaps you'd care to address the myriad issues I, and others btw, have voiced in this thread. The pages have accumulated precisely because I have not thrown out simple, short ad hominems or logical dismissives as you have described. I've done most of the talking. I may be wrong about SC's but one thing I hope is that people here are convinced of my sincerity on the issue. I have a real concern about the philosophical direction you're trying to take Bitcoin in and the highly risky economic effects it may have. |
|
|
|
I don't see it that way. I see you were happy about coinlock saying this... Now super-risky-coin collapses, I lose my Bitcoin because the information about the relative risks was hidden in the deterministic rate.
To this I would say: you already lost your Bitcoins when you swapped them for super-risky-coins. That information isn't hidden at all. When you 'move' (it's debatable wether that's a good expression to use) BTC -> scBTC you're well aware you're swapping your bitcoins for sidechain coins, aren't you? If that's a real question, then, but of course. SC's mechanics are easy to understand. But economically do they work and will they be good for Bitcoin? The answer, I think, is more philosophical. I think Bitcoin is, and has always been, simply money. It has gotten to where it has based on economic assumptions of how the blockchain works currently. SC's change all those assumptions. That is a mistake, imo. If people can be lured into thinking their scBTC are BTC (even just 'monetarily'), then yes, that's a danger. The same kind of danger as thinking mtgoxBTC are BTC. going back to ccc now. side-note: the 'hacker crowd' seems much more open to Bitcoin than a year ago. Clearly people can be duped into thinking they are bitcoins. The Blockstream people have told us they are multiple times. And altcoins are evidence people will believe anything. |
|
|
|
I don't see it that way. I see you were happy about coinlock saying this... Now super-risky-coin collapses, I lose my Bitcoin because the information about the relative risks was hidden in the deterministic rate.
To this I would say: you already lost your Bitcoins when you swapped them for super-risky-coins. That information isn't hidden at all. When you 'move' (it's debatable wether that's a good expression to use) BTC -> scBTC you're well aware you're swapping your bitcoins for sidechain coins, aren't you? If that's a real question, then, but of course. SC's mechanics are easy to understand. But economically do they work and will they be good for Bitcoin? The answer, I think, is more philosophical. I think Bitcoin is, and has always been, simply money. It has gotten to where it has based on economic assumptions of how the blockchain works currently. SC's change all those assumptions. That is a mistake, imo. SC's would change some assumptions and most certainly not all. It is also debatable whether those changes will hinder the Bitcoin blockchain or help it thrive. Those are very logical statements with which I agree. Clearly I have my opinions though. |
|
|
|
nullc : About the only thing negative you can say about a system which is truly backed by Bitcoin is that it doesn't create huge incomes for traders. Many people wouldn't consider that much of a negative.Does he heard about Soros? When two things are pegged while they don't have the same economic features, then the pegged is temporary, and that creates profit opportunities and people prompted to accelerate the failure of the peg system. It looks like sidechains people think because two things are pegged they magically become the same thing. From 1984 to 1997 the thai bath was pegged with the US dollar, that doesn't mean that the bath was the same thing than the dollar. Sooner or later the market forces end up destroying the top down price fixation. Yep, that contorted remark by nullc is painfully naive. He totally neglects the fact that these SC assets will have a separate exchange price in fiat that certainly can and will be pumped and manipulated to all sorts of illogical levels. SC's don't solve any of those issues Please, we have been going over this times and times again. The exchange rate of a properly implemented 1:1 SC asset will, in time, closely track BTC prices for many logical reasons. 'pumped and manipulated to all sorts of illogical levels'? Yeah, that's ridiculous. If the peg works, arbitrage would stop that kind of thing in its roots. Also: do you really thing there would be sidechainCoin <-> fiat exchange? I doubt that makes much sense since the peg plus existing bitcoin <-> fiat exchanges can easily be used, no? Yes, there should be markets that arise. Have you read Konrad Grafs paper? |
|
|
|
I don't see it that way. I see you were happy about coinlock saying this... Now super-risky-coin collapses, I lose my Bitcoin because the information about the relative risks was hidden in the deterministic rate.
To this I would say: you already lost your Bitcoins when you swapped them for super-risky-coins. That information isn't hidden at all. When you 'move' (it's debatable wether that's a good expression to use) BTC -> scBTC you're well aware you're swapping your bitcoins for sidechain coins, aren't you? If that's a real question, then, but of course. SC's mechanics are easy to understand. But economically do they work and will they be good for Bitcoin? The answer, I think, is more philosophical. I think Bitcoin is, and has always been, simply money. It has gotten to where it has based on economic assumptions of how the blockchain works currently. SC's change all those assumptions. That is a mistake, imo. |
|
|
|
nullc : About the only thing negative you can say about a system which is truly backed by Bitcoin is that it doesn't create huge incomes for traders. Many people wouldn't consider that much of a negative.Does he heard about Soros? When two things are pegged while they don't have the same economic features, then the pegged is temporary, and that creates profit opportunities and people prompted to accelerate the failure of the peg system. It looks like sidechains people think because two things are pegged they magically become the same thing. From 1984 to 1997 the thai bath was pegged with the US dollar, that doesn't mean that the bath was the same thing than the dollar. Sooner or later the market forces end up destroying the top down price fixation. Yep, that contorted remark by nullc is painfully naive. He totally neglects the fact that these SC assets will have a separate exchange price in fiat that certainly can and will be pumped and manipulated to all sorts of illogical levels. SC's don't solve any of those issues |
|
|
|
Thought cypherdoc might like this article by Daniel Krawisz http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/I am sort of imagining it as what underlies his arguments that he doesnt like sidechains. I think thats likely still mistaken (and Krawisz as ever makes interesting informed economic arguments). If nothing else for those who view bitcoin as gold2.0 (and I do myself) then its in our interest actually that there not be code churn on bitcoin-core to add micro-payments, fancy contracts etc etc it's better to fix all the bugs, refactor and freeze the code. Put the code churn onto other chains. But having the other chains be non-bitcoin denominated detracts from bitcoin. Hence... sidechains. Further if extra features can go into sidechains, perhaps along the way bitcoin could do things to reduce centralisation reduce blocksize, and get rid of extraneous existing code complexity by refactoring some things off into a more featureful sidechain. btw I read Krawisz as more saying investment utility is the predominant driver of bitcoin adoption, transactional uses secondary. Anyway just some thoughts, not trying to reanimate the sub-thread. Adam If you make a commitment to stick around and address all my concerns instead of lobbing in a comment every hundred pages or so then maybe I'll take the effort to repeat everything I've already said. |
|
|
|
Sidechain coins are Bitcoins. All the muddled thinking about 'fixed price', 'supply/demand', etc, etc and the consequent confusion goes out the window when one conceptualizes that. Alas, not everyone is capable of doing so and clearly not that Coinlock dude. Of course most people are not really capable of conceptualizing Bitcoin itself for the same basic lack of mental flexibility. Or any form of 'money' really.
no. Bitcoins are units that only exist on the MC. Bingo! We have a winner! Repeat after me as many times as necessary: 'two...way...peg. two...way...peg." This 'exists on MC' is precisely what separates Sidchain coins from Bitcoin alts and work-a-likes.
anything else that rides on less secure SC's are who the hell knows what.
Granted in the earlier phases there will be a discount for this which will diminish as confidence increases. There will also be a discount for the mechanical aspects of utilizing the peg. But these things are minor and largely inconsequential to the conceptual basis of the solution. The peg is an illusion. I think you're just suffering some confusion. But I'm not sure exactly what.
^ this No. I thought coinlock phrased it very well. Which is why nullc disappeared. |
|
|
|
Sidechain coins are Bitcoins. All the muddled thinking about 'fixed price', 'supply/demand', etc, etc and the consequent confusion goes out the window when one conceptualizes that. Alas, not everyone is capable of doing so and clearly not that Coinlock dude. Of course most people are not really capable of conceptualizing Bitcoin itself for the same basic lack of mental flexibility. Or any form of 'money' really.
no. Bitcoins are units that only exist on the MC. Bingo! We have a winner! Repeat after me as many times as necessary: 'two...way...peg. two...way...peg." This 'exists on MC' is precisely what separates Sidchain coins from Bitcoin alts and work-a-likes.
anything else that rides on less secure SC's are who the hell knows what.
Granted in the earlier phases there will be a discount for this which will diminish as confidence increases. There will also be a discount for the mechanical aspects of utilizing the peg. But these things are minor and largely inconsequential to the conceptual basis of the solution. The peg is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Sidechain coins are Bitcoins. All the muddled thinking about 'fixed price', 'supply/demand', etc, etc and the consequent confusion goes out the window when one conceptualizes that. Alas, not everyone is capable of doing so and clearly not that Coinlock dude. Of course most people are not really capable of conceptualizing Bitcoin itself for the same basic lack of mental flexibility. Or any form of 'money' really. no. Bitcoins are units that only exist on the MC. anything else that rides on less secure SC's are who the hell knows what. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
