...

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

If Bitcoin were a new type of bus, it would be one that can take its passengers anywhere in the world, in complete security, in about an hour.  $200/ticket is well worth the premium over the shitty Greyhound Fiat alternative.

Of course this new bus will be very popular, so the most fair and efficient way to distribute tickets is through market pricing mechanisms.

Those priced out of the Bitcoin Bus will whine that it should be made 20 times larger.  That's obviously a stupid idea, so they will backpedal to an 800% increase.

The problem is that the roads, bridges, gas stations, mechanics, etc. cannot safely handle such an absurdity.

To be feasible, Gigabuses would need to have infrastructure reinforced with Rearden metal, and roads widened to the size of runways.

And thus, the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Luckily for everyone, other companies are completely free to use the technology of the Bitcoin Bus (the blockchain engine) to build their own better buses.

[1714836388]

1714836388

[hdbuck]

Fork the bus!

[DooMAD]

the peasants' desire (...) is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Sums up the entire discussion nicely.  A small minority of elitists want Bitcoin to benefit them and them alone.  They don't feel Bitcoin should benefit the world, just themselves.  

There's a balance to be struck between security and capacity and the balance is most certainly not two-thirds of a floppy disk.

Luckily for everyone, other companies are completely free to use the technology of the Bitcoin Bus (the blockchain engine) to build their own better buses.

Luckily for "those who matter", they can use another technology altogether if they don't want to share the bus with "peasants".  Surely you'd prefer a chauffeur driven limo on another blockchain instead of riding the bus with the rest of us.  

[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.

Any update on this tvbcof?  Whats backing these infinite foocoins? 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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."

you're quite mad. 

[btccashacc]

that means more centralization. Anyway, there is one now too....but it will be more visible with XT.

well, that means BTC end. BTC is based on anonymity. Why shouldn't I use any other e-currency if BTC will be centralized more than now?

why you think bitcoin is centralization ?

[Brewins]

that means more centralization. Anyway, there is one now too....but it will be more visible with XT.

well, that means BTC end. BTC is based on anonymity. Why shouldn't I use any other e-currency if BTC will be centralized more than now?

why you think bitcoin is centralization ?

he meant that XT, if succeds, will mean more centralization.

I think it is easy to know why, logged IPs, blacklisted IPs, proxies and TOR banned, how implement it without a central authority?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

that means more centralization. Anyway, there is one now too....but it will be more visible with XT.

well, that means BTC end. BTC is based on anonymity. Why shouldn't I use any other e-currency if BTC will be centralized more than now?

why you think bitcoin is centralization ?

he meant that XT, if succeds, will mean more centralization.

I think it is easy to know why, logged IPs, blacklisted IPs, proxies and TOR banned, how implement it without a central authority?

 logged IPs  -  where? 
blacklisted nodes. -  nope. lowered priority if they act the bollix, but otherwise nothing. remember, thelist comes from tor, not bitcoin.
tor and proxt banned:  Can you show me where XT stops using proxys? 

[iCEBREAKER]

Increased public awareness of XT's hidden privacy-invading 'features' has stopped its growth.

Given that NotXT/Pseudo nodes may be replacing XT attrition, RealXT nodes may even be declining.

[kano]

Ummm ... there's still only 3 XT blocks in the last 1000 blocks (6.5 days), and only one in the last 2 days (blame slush for them all )
so I'm not sure what anyone would be doing trying to suggest it's catching on

[hdbuck]

Antifragility! Gotta love bitcoin! Once we done with usgavin ccmf!!!

[Delek]

This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes. 

[Peter R]

This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes. 

It has already reached over 1000 nodes (presently 1101).  It is now the second most popular implementation:

[iCEBREAKER]

This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes.  

It has already reached over 1000 nodes (presently 1101).  It is now the second most popular implementation:

I know misleading the public is your favorite hobby, but could you please disclose the XT node count includes those spoofed by NotXT and Pseudonode?

Or is honesty asking too much of a Gavinista dead-ender?

[Peter R]

This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes. 

It has already reached over 1000 nodes (presently 1101).  It is now the second most popular implementation:

I know misleading the public is your favorite hobby, but could please disclose the XT node count includes those spoofed by NotXT and Pseudonode?

It sounds like the recent jump in XT nodes was caused by tytyty_ on /r/bitcoinXT:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/

[BitcoinEXpress]

Why is everyone freaking out?


What's wrong with a little bit of control, policing and over sight?


Just don't do anything wrong or piss off the wrong people and you'll be fine.



~BCX~

[iCEBREAKER]

Why is everyone freaking out?


What's wrong with a little bit of control, policing and over sight?


Just don't do anything wrong or piss off the wrong people and you'll be fine.

Exactly!  Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from Heam's checkpoints and "final call."

[kano]

... well ... will be interesting over the next few days to see how many pools start putting /BIP100/ in their sigs

[iCEBREAKER]

... well ... will be interesting over the next few days to see how many pools start putting /BIP100/ in their sigs

No, that's boring (because talk is cheap, anyone may bluff).  The actually "interesting" part comes when/if we find out who was faking and who genuinely supported bloated Gavinblocks.

[Muhammed Zakir]

LOL!

http://litecoinxt.com