...

[hdbuck]

[1714065182]

1714065182

[1714065182]

1714065182

[1714065182]

1714065182

[tvbcof]

6)  Develop technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs.

 - Now each passenger pays the expected modest fee and the bus company has enough income to operate a very secure business.

Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.'  That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.

sidechains could aggregate the activity of thousands of sidechain transactions to a single on-chain transaction.  Even a tiny transaction fee at the user level passed up to the Bitcoin backing layer would support very robust infrastructure.

I would add that merchants of a certain size will provide pretty decent savings to customers who will participate in their company 'rewards program' or use company gift cards.  If the merchant had their own branded currency system it must be worth at least as much to them as a silly little rewards card.  This could bring a tsunami of value into what I've always called a 'subordinate chains' cypto-currency ecosystem.  Sidechains would be an example but the word was not coined when I started promoting that scaling mechanism.

Seems to me that what Blockstream is shooting for is to be recognized as a trusted authority both technically and ethically in a world where sidechains are a major economic player.  If a 'branded currency' is a useful thing to large corporations, they (unlike a gaggle of plebs) have the muscle to induce governments to lighten up and allow them to at least exist.

I would never expect the financial services industry proper to be very supportive of real sidechains operating under a 'free' backing store since they are doing very well under the current fully controlled systems.  I could see this sector promoting something like XT which gives them the hope of monopolizing the take from a centralized and controlled solution just as they do with most fiat systems today.

Except that what you are doing is effectively "dressing" up the bus company to be contracted out to a 3rd party operator. That operator runs the buses, invests in new buses that are entirely his. collects the fares and manages the majority of the business. Then you tell your shareholders that they never owned the buses in the first place - only the bus stops.  But you originally thought there was a limited number of stops, you now find that their are 100,000,000 bus stops where previously you had one. Your bus stop is virtually valueless. The buses go by full.

Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis.  If it fails, they fail.  Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses.  They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.

As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs.  A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.

80,000 to a bus??? Thats exactly why you shouldn't be in charge.  

Making Bitcoin be everything to everyone is like 80,000/bus supercharged, amped on meth, and shot full of on steroids.  That's why Hearndresen should not be in charge.

[BNO]

read Ars Technica and understand why we need XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis.  If it fails, they fail.  Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses.  They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.

As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs.  A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.

You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain?

So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin?  So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky.

What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy?

[tvbcof]

Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis.  If it fails, they fail.  Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses.  They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.

As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs.  A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.

You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain?

So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin?  So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky.

What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy?

You need to be able to visualize ratios.

When I say 'one-to-one', I'm not even indicating that individual sidechains would not have their own inflation/deflation.  I fully expect that many of them would.  People who decide to own coins on one sidechain or another would need to factor the management of a sidechain into their decision.

Sidechains when viewed from above would be rated specifically on how many Bitcoin's are pegged.

 1) foocoin has 1000 BTC pegged to it.  It's a '1000 BTC sidecoin.'

 2) There are 10,000 foocoins.  Thus, there are 10 foocoin to the BTC.

 3) Tomorrow the foocoin project changes to a circulation of 20,000 foocoins.

After #3 foocoin remains a '1000 BTC sidechain' irrespective of the internal circulation decisions.

As a user one needs to have confidence in the management of foocoin.  If you cannot achieve that confidence, don't buy any foocoins.  If you start to lose confidence, excersize your peg and bail back into Bitcoin, or move directly to another sidecoin.

What developers like Blockstream can do is to provide the tools so that you can protect your stake in the backing store.  For instance, mathematically gaurentee that if the foocoin circulation changes by more than x% in x amount of time, you automatically revert to holding the backing currency (which would be Bitcoin unless Heardresen destroy it as a 'free' currency first.)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis.  If it fails, they fail.  Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses.  They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.

As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs.  A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.

You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain?

So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin?  So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky.

What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy?

You need to be able to visualize ratios.

My 1:100 example above, you can take it I can visualise ratios  

When I say 'one-to-one', I'm not even indicating that individual sidechains would not have their own inflation/deflation.  I fully expect that many of them would.  People who decide to own coins on one sidechain or another would need to factor the management of a sidechain into their decision.

Sidechains when viewed from above would be rated specifically on how many Bitcoin's are pegged.

 1) foocoin has 1000 BTC pegged to it.  It's a '1000 BTC sidecoin.'

 2) There are 10,000 foocoins.  Thus, there are 10 foocoin to the BTC.

 3) Tomorrow the foocoin project changes to a circulation of 20,000 foocoins.

After #3 foocoin remains a '1000 BTC sidechain' irrespective of the internal circulation decisions.

Okay, so 1BTC can just as easily be 1:100,000,000 with respect to foocoin, because these are simply internal circulation decisions. Fair enough.

But what backing do they have? Does the sidechain intend to offer guarantees in a  manner that are compliant with CPSS settlement standards ? I know thats implementation specific, but a ball park answer would do. Do the bitcoins actually do that? And if they dont, whats the point?
If I do a settlement via a sidechain that's equivalent to say a swift mtxxx, I want to be sure that I have reduced any payment system risks (liquidity, credit & systemic risks) - I dont see (for now) where that is coming from when using foocoins, or even a fraction of a bitcoin.

I'm thinking the liquidity requirements would be quite high.

As a user one needs to have confidence in the management of foocoin.  If you cannot achieve that confidence, don't buy any foocoins.  If you start to lose confidence, excersize your peg and bail back into Bitcoin, or move directly to another sidecoin.

What developers like Blockstream can do is to provide the tools so that you can protect your stake in the backing store.  For instance, mathematically gaurentee that if the foocoin circulation changes by more than x% in x amount of time, you automatically revert to holding the backing currency (which would be Bitcoin unless Heardresen destroy it as a 'free' currency first.)

As a Bank wishing to execute a settlement, I dont have to actually buy these foocoins? Do I assume the sidechain will allow end to end fiat?

tl;dr  I'm not saying sidechains wont work ( I think they could) but I'm failing to see how bitcoins are of any value to them.

[dKingston]

just another reason to blacklist mike hearn and all of his ideas

[hdbuck]

just another reason to blacklist mike hearn and all of his ideas

gavin too.

ps: and who the hell is this Tom Harding? https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

[SpiryGolden]

Looks like XT is a piece of shady bullshit. What will be in the next version ? Direct reporting to NSA ?

I can't wait to see that version ! It will be a blockbuster =) .

[iCEBREAKER]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

Yes, let's keep forking XT.

So far, we have XT and NotXT.

I like your suggestions for GoodXT and XT90.

So we'll also need NotGoodXT and NotXT90.

Oh, and GoodXT90/NotGoodXT90.

Can we make a BadXT, which has all the evil anti-Tor/blacklist BS but no block increase?

We'll get everyone so confused, both sides will somehow be deploying hundreds of NotBadXT nodes thinking that's helpful. 

and XTNOW which forks as soon as it syncs ..

zomg brilliant lol

I would run the hell out of XTNOW.   

[xedd]

"And this orwellian control freak is on the loose around Bitcoin inner circles?"

This seems a bit trollish...

Please accept my humblest apologies if it was not meant to be.

[dooglus]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

That's already available. It's called "Bitcoin Core".

You own a bus company and you are losing money because you have 1 bus, only enough customers to fill 60% of its capacity on average, and 20 employees  with fat salaries in an expensive rented office. You are charging 1 $ of fare, but you are spending 200 $ for each passenger that your carry. However passengers are increasing and by next year you know that you will have to leave passengers waiting for hours at peak hours and times.  What would you do to fix your financial situation:

(1) get a loan from the bank, buy another 7 buses and hope that somehow it will be enough

(2) raise the fare to 200 $ per passenger

(3) wait until next year and then let the passengers negotiate the fare with the driver by a blind auction on the platform.

(4) fire all employees except 1 driver and 1 mechanic, close the main office and move to a back-office in the garage

(5) file for bankruptcy protection.

You forgot the obvious 6th option:

(6) Increase the size of your bus so it holds 8 times as many people. Then regularly double the size of the bus and keep doubling until it holds 8000 times as many people. It probably won't be able to fit on the existing roads, but don't worry about that; Moore's law says the roads will probably double in size every 18 months. Or something.

[slaveforanunnak1]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

That's already available. It's called "Bitcoin Core".

You own a bus company and you are losing money because you have 1 bus, only enough customers to fill 60% of its capacity on average, and 20 employees  with fat salaries in an expensive rented office. You are charging 1 $ of fare, but you are spending 200 $ for each passenger that your carry. However passengers are increasing and by next year you know that you will have to leave passengers waiting for hours at peak hours and times.  What would you do to fix your financial situation:

(1) get a loan from the bank, buy another 7 buses and hope that somehow it will be enough

(2) raise the fare to 200 $ per passenger

(3) wait until next year and then let the passengers negotiate the fare with the driver by a blind auction on the platform.

(4) fire all employees except 1 driver and 1 mechanic, close the main office and move to a back-office in the garage

(5) file for bankruptcy protection.

You forgot the obvious 6th option:

(6) Increase the size of your bus so it holds 8 times as many people. Then regularly double the size of the bus and keep doubling until it holds 8000 times as many people. It probably won't be able to fit on the existing roads, but don't worry about that; Moore's law says the roads will probably double in size every 18 months. Or something.

He also fails to mention that in his analogy, they can increase the size of all buses in few days Tops! they've demonstrated this before actually!  so, we'll have long lines for a day or so and now BAM!!  we have bigger buses to accommodate new passengers in 48 hours. Otherwise you're going to split the fucking bus in two incompatible sections and risk everyone's lives.

[isti2531]

good data.

[SpiryGolden]

Found a video with Bitcoin-XT fans meet-up

https://youtu.be/hopeFgwApCM?t=48s

[majestymage]

this is such a bullshit! the stability of bitcoin comes from the trust on the fact that the game won't change! if they change one rule who can trust them to not change others? maybe tomorrow some smartass will consider to increase the number of coins or whatever...

[Bagatell]

if they change one rule who can trust them to not change others?

What rules?

[majestymage]

if they change one rule who can trust them to not change others?

What rules?

the rules of the game my friend

[tvbcof]

Found a video with Bitcoin-XT fans meet-up

https://youtu.be/hopeFgwApCM?t=48s

One to use a Satoshi Bitcoin to identify an XT shill by pressing to his or her forehead.  It will sizzle the flesh and they will exclaim:

"Unclean! Unclean! Even the Almighty shuns my polluted flesh! I must bear this mark of shame upon my forehead until the Judgement Day."

[HostFat]

<Lightsword> hearn, here’s a tweak that may help with privacy though, only download the tor list if the node gets full
<Lightsword> hearn, there’s no need to download it unless a node is getting full
<hearn> yes, that could be done. it needs a bit of code changes.

If this was an huge problem for you, than it will be solved it seems.