No mass adoption because of the One-size-fits-all bitcoin

[Wary]

Bitcoin is good, but it's not good enough.

Internet have won when emai have appeared. Email was so much better than snail-mail, for everybody, that it have become the killer app and the mainstream adoption have happened.

There is no such killer application for bitcoin. Let's face it, Bitcoin's benefits over fiat are currently not big enough to justify switching to it.
Therefore we have to find a more fitting niche market, with specific needs where bitcoin's benefit over fiat are higher.
There are several such markets.

However, the last year have shown that bitcoin is not taking over remittance market or internet-sales market or PESA market or even black market. Bitcoin is not good enough even for a niche markets.

Therefore, to take over one of these markets, it have to be modified, to make a better fit.
For example:

-For black and gray market it have to be much more private.
-For cup-of-coffee market it have to be much more fast. And much more scalable.
-For PESA market it have to be more SMS-friendly
-For bank backbone market it have to be much more secure (compulsory multisign etc)
-For record-keeping market it have to have more fields for information storage
-For smart-contract market it have to have smart-contract language embedded
etc etc etc

The above are just some rough ideas. Undoubtedly, there are much more possible changes that would make bitcoin much better fit for those markets.
What's more, many of these changes have been already invented and even implemented in some altcoins.

All we have to do is to combine these improvement with benefits of mainstream bitcoin: first mover advantage and security, based on powerful mining factories.

There is no guarantee it will happen. But it depends not on whims of some billionaire-whale, but on us. We have to do just two things:

1) Fight hard to overcome powerful interest groups in bitcoin community and put the sidechains BIP into the bitcoin core.
2) Work hard to implement those niche market sidechains.
      -more-secure-than-bitcoin  sidechain for backbone of banks
      -more-private-than-bitcoin sidechain for black-gray market
      -more-scalable-than-bitcoin sidechain for internet shopping
      -more-fast-than-bitcoin sidechain for cup-of-coffee purchases
      -more-sms-friendly-than-bitcoin sidechain to replace PESA
      -more and more of these specialised sidecoins for niche markets


And then - to the moon.

tl;dr; Bitcoin can win only through a niche market. To win a niche market, we need sidechain BIP.

[1713527511]

1713527511

[1713527511]

1713527511

[1713527511]

1713527511

[1713527511]

1713527511

[1713527511]

1713527511

[Slark]

People are allergic to any "fork action" of bitcoin. That is why XT failed so miserably, I am not sure if that proposed BIP of yours is not conservative enough for bitcoin purists.
Also I doubt that any changes that will push bitcoin into even more anonymous and private state will ever happen, it will be quite opposite route imo.

[Lauda]

"Sidechains - The Magical solution" propaganda? Even though I don't mind sidechains (I even support them), your post is based on speculation and your personal beliefs. This has zero value in my world. There are possibly better solutions for some of the 'problems' that you've listed.

[NorrisK]

People are allergic to any "fork action" of bitcoin. That is why XT failed so miserably, I am not sure if that proposed BIP of yours is not conservative enough for bitcoin purists.
Also I doubt that any changes that will push bitcoin into even more anonymous and private state will ever happen, it will be quite opposite route imo.

That is not the only reason that XT failed so badly. Their were some serious doubts about the intentions behind the fast push of XT. The main problem that was being tackled was good imo, but all the other stuff they tried to sneak in there should not have happened.

[Wary]

People are allergic to any "fork action" of bitcoin. That is why XT failed so miserably, I am not sure if that proposed BIP of yours is not conservative enough for bitcoin purists.
Also I doubt that any changes that will push bitcoin into even more anonymous and private state will ever happen, it will be quite opposite route imo.

It's not my BIP. I'm not suggesting any specific BIP. I'm suggesting a BIP that would enable sidechains. Because I think that without sidechains chances of bitcoin getting mainstream adoption would be much lower. Why I think so - see OP.

[Wary]

"Sidechains - The Magical solution" propaganda? Even though I don't mind sidechains (I even support them), your post is based on speculation and your personal beliefs. This has zero value in my world. There are possibly better solutions for some of the 'problems' that you've listed.

I would be glad to make detailed answer to your post, but alas. You've gave me nothing to answer to. No facts, no reasoning, just a fountain of emotions. What one can answer to pure emotions? Calm down, take it easy? OK, please calm down and take it easy.

But if, apart from emotions, you have something else to say, if you have found a mistake in my facts or a logical fault in my reasoning, then I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

[Lauda]

I would be glad to make detailed answer to your post, but alas. You've gave me nothing to answer to. No facts, no reasoning, just a fountain of emotions. What one can answer to pure emotions? Calm down, take it easy? OK, please calm down and take it easy.

But if, apart from emotions, you have something else to say, if you have found a mistake in my facts or a logical fault in my reasoning, then I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

No emotions, you are mistaken and/or confused. I objectively pointed out the flaw in this thread; it has not presented us with anything what I'd call 'evidence' that would back up this theory. You would have to back up your claims that sidechains are the right answer and elaborate why we should focus on them and not on other potential solutions. Then, and only then, is it possible for this thread to enter a sate of (possibly) healthy discussion. Note: I have a good understanding of sidechains and have at least, at 1 point in this year, suggested them and/or discussed them around here.

[franky1]

side chains is not the solution..

for instance.
1. side chains is like saying 'gold is a natural and rare material. but in 2016 it can now be made in lab in infinite amounts' - goodbye rarity
2. side chains are other blockchains... so whether you do a transaction on bitcoin or a second chain.. the data has not changed or decreased, its just moved. but now instead of one blockchain to fill up a hard drive.. now miners have to worry about multiple blockchains bloating a hard drive.
3. by mining more than one chain, will dilute the hashrate/difficulty as the hashes dont just protect one chain, but now have to protect multiple chains
4. sidechains wont just be a problem for miners, but also users wanting to run full-nodes. as explained in point 2. which will cause a dilution of people wanting to run
full nodes because they would have to store X*32mb blocks per 10 minutes. instead of just 1*32mb blocks per 10 minutes.

the only positive of sidechains are only for the creators of these altcoins. who can premine an altcoin and then sell it 1for1 for bitcoin..

[Carlton Banks]

side chains is not the solution..

for instance.
1. side chains is like saying 'gold is a natural and rare material. but in 2016 it can now be made in lab in infinite amounts' - goodbye rarity
2. side chains are other blockchains... so whether you do a transaction on bitcoin or a second chain.. the data has not changed or decreased, its just moved. but now instead of one blockchain to fill up a hard drive.. now miners have to worry about multiple blockchains bloating a hard drive.
3. by mining more than one chain, will dilute the hashrate/difficulty as the hashes dont just protect one chain, but now have to protect multiple chains
4. sidechains wont just be a problem for miners, but also users wanting to run full-nodes. as explained in point 2. which will cause a dilution of people wanting to run
full nodes because they would have to store X*32mb blocks per 10 minutes. instead of just 1*32mb blocks per 10 minutes.

the only positive of sidechains are only for the creators of these altcoins. who can premine an altcoin and then sell it 1for1 for bitcoin..

Even though you're right that sidechains aren't the solution to scaling, you've not quite grasped the idea properly. The whole point of having extra chains linked to the main one is so that not everyone needs to store the extra chains.

[franky1]

side chains is not the solution..

for instance.
1. side chains is like saying 'gold is a natural and rare material. but in 2016 it can now be made in lab in infinite amounts' - goodbye rarity
2. side chains are other blockchains... so whether you do a transaction on bitcoin or a second chain.. the data has not changed or decreased, its just moved. but now instead of one blockchain to fill up a hard drive.. now miners have to worry about multiple blockchains bloating a hard drive.
3. by mining more than one chain, will dilute the hashrate/difficulty as the hashes dont just protect one chain, but now have to protect multiple chains
4. sidechains wont just be a problem for miners, but also users wanting to run full-nodes. as explained in point 2. which will cause a dilution of people wanting to run
full nodes because they would have to store X*32mb blocks per 10 minutes. instead of just 1*32mb blocks per 10 minutes.

the only positive of sidechains are only for the creators of these altcoins. who can premine an altcoin and then sell it 1for1 for bitcoin..

Even though you're right that sidechains aren't the solution to scaling, you've not quite grasped the idea properly. The whole point of having extra chains linked to the main one is so that not everyone needs to store the extra chains.

which was my point number 4.. sidechains will cause even less people to want to run full-nodes

[Carlton Banks]

which was my point number 4.. sidechains will cause even less people to want to run full-nodes

No, you don't get it. Neither miners or users have to worry about sidechains that they don't use, because you don't need to download a chain you don't use. Points 2 and 4 are invalid.

[Wary]

No emotions, you are mistaken and/or confused. I objectively pointed out the flaw in this thread; it has not presented us with anything what I'd call 'evidence' that would back up this theory. You would have to back up your claims that sidechains are the right answer and elaborate why we should focus on them and not on other potential solutions. Then, and only then, is it possible for this thread to enter a sate of (possibly) healthy discussion. Note: I have a good understanding of sidechains and have at least, at 1 point in this year, suggested them and/or discussed them around here.

Thanks, that's something that we can discuss:

There are possibly better solutions for some of the 'problems' that you've listed.

-I see two problem with this argument.
a)  The "there are possibly better solutions" is not an argument at all, because exactly the same can be said about any solutions of any problem in the world. Correct? This argument is faulty because it is impossible to prove non-existence of something. Non-existence of possible better solution, in particular. In a healthy discussion an objection to a suggested solution should be either: "I suggest another solution, it is better and that's why:". Or "Status quo is better than changes you are suggesting and that's why:". If you have such an argument, let's discuss it. It is quite possible that you are right and I am wrong, but you should demonstrate it. That's how healthy discussions go, in my understanding.

b) You put the word 'problems' in quotes. This indicates that you don't believe that they are problems. Why then you are talking about solutions if there are no problems in the first place? You've said I am confused. Now you can see why  So, could you indicate a bit more clearly which my statement you are arguing with? I'll repeat them here, in more detail:

1. Two years ago it was generally expected among bitcoin community that bitcoin will soon get new niche markets: remittance, internet trade, Wall-street etc. Do you agree?
2. This didn't happen. Do you agree?
3. Bitcoin usage is not growing, at least at such extend that it can be distinguished from speculative rallies/crashes. Here is the proof: https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=1&address= (EDIT: I put the graph with comments in OP)
As you can see, for the period from Jan11 to Jan14, i.e. for 3 years it did grow steadily and had gained 4 orders of magnitude. But for the following 2 years, from jan14 till now, it have not gained not a single order of magnitude. We can clearly see 3-year "staircase" and then 2-year flat line. The only conclusion I can make is that bitcoin was gaining new and new markets, for 3 years, but 2 years ago it have practically stopped. Do you agree?
4. Bitcoin have not (yet) replaced fiat from mainstream market. Do you agree?
5. Same is true about niche market. Even drug trade (the most fitting niche market) is still mostly runs on fiat. Do you agree?
6. Bitcoin is not replacing fiat from mainstream market because it' benefits over fiat it not big enough to justify it for customer. Do you agree? (I hope you do, because it's almost an tautology ).
7. Bitcoin is not replacing fiat from niche markets by the same reason. Do you agree?
8. The way for bitcoin adoption goes through niche market. After conquering a niche market it strength grows and it makes easier to enter the next niche. Do you agree?
9. For each niche market there are some feature(s) of bitcoin that can be changed/added, to make it better fit and increase chances of it being adopted. (Scalability, speed, privacy, taxability etc). You may disagree with specific examples, but do you agree that such niches and features exist?
10. Do you agree that making bitcoin better fit for one niche, we can make it worse fit for some other niches?
11. Do you agree that in situation when we have an array of virtual currencies, each one tailored for its own niche market, with their total value fixed (I.e. that total value of all altcoins is never above 21M BTC and you'll never lose on exchanging from altcoin to bitcoin and back), chances of them getting mainstream adoption would be considerably higher than now?
12. Do you agree that sidechains offers such a solution?
13. Do you know any other solution that gives us the same results: array of niche-tailored non-competing currencies?

[spazzdla]

The first computer was invented in 1946.

In 1990, almost no one had one in their home

2000, most people owned one.

2015 everyone has one in their pocket.




Time is a tricky ******.

[ATguy]

11. Do you agree that in situation when we have an array of virtual currencies, each one tailored for its own niche market, with their total value fixed (I.e. that total value of all altcoins is never above 21M BTC and you'll never lose on exchanging from altcoin to bitcoin and back), chances of them getting mainstream adoption would be considerably higher than now?
12. Do you agree that sidechains offers such a solution?

which was my point number 4.. sidechains will cause even less people to want to run full-nodes

No, you don't get it. Neither miners or users have to worry about sidechains that they don't use, because you don't need to download a chain you don't use. Points 2 and 4 are invalid.

But the franky1 point that you split the hashing power remains. This splitting makes every sidechain less secure than if you have one scaled blockchain.

And who decides how many and what properties of the sidechains? You let free market decide like everyone can create one and he will compete to get haspower to get security for his sidechain (aka altcoins, and again, making average sidechain hashpower only lower) or just Bitcoin developers will have the final word?

[Carlton Banks]

But the franky1 point that you split the hashing power remains. This splitting makes every sidechain less secure than if you have one scaled blockchain.

Yes, not every miner will mine every chain, so not every chain will be as secure as the main chain. It's a problem. More complex designs can be used to address the issue (treechains, DAG chains etc), but I'm not sure that the dust has settled on those ideas sufficiently yet.

And who decides how many and what properties of the sidechains? You let free market decide like everyone can create one and he will compete to get haspower to get security for his sidechain (aka altcoins, and again, making average sidechain hashpower only lower) or just Bitcoin developers will have the final word?

No, sidechains will have their own interface, and anyone can design a chain to work with the interface (and Bitcoin network rules, of course)

[Wary]

Updated OP with a multi-colored graph.

[franky1]

which was my point number 4.. sidechains will cause even less people to want to run full-nodes

No, you don't get it. Neither miners or users have to worry about sidechains that they don't use, because you don't need to download a chain you don't use. Points 2 and 4 are invalid.

the way you envision is that coins remain separate..
so say i have walmart coin because maybe a family member works at walmart. gets paid walmart coins and i buy walmart coins from my family, to then buy groceries.

for me to be a proper full node. because MY earnings are bitcoin.. i need to run bitcoin-core AND walmart-core because i want to have both..
but because Walmart do 100,000 tx/s my walmart blockchain is getting huge. so much so that i give up being a node for both walmart and bitcoin...

the other thing about separate chains is.. that its no different to right now.. coins traded on exchanges via SQL databases.. and if you rebutt that there will be a masterchain that see's and regulated all the side chains.. then this masterchain that decentralises the exchanges will BLOAT..



others envision that sidechains will have the total coinage of other alts to meet but not exceed the total bitcoin 21mill.
so lets say walmart has 3million coins
so lets say Amazon has 3million coins
so lets say Apple has 3million coins
so lets say Ebay has 3million coins
so lets say Visa has 4.5million coins
so lets say Mastercard has 4.5million coins

totaling the comparable bitcoin circulation..

lets get one point clear right away it will not EVER be a fair 1walmart sat for 1bitcoin sat swap.

after all apple employee's get paid more than walmart employee's and mastercard employee's get paid more again.. so each coins value will be different. and a second issue affecting the 'supply' of coins would be number of employees aswell as how much they decide to hoard, stumping circulation to create demand.. vs swapping for any relevant price they can grab.

so although sidechains may create more transactions per second. (EG 6*7txps). the amount of usable coins is now 42million.. and some of the sidechains may have lots of supply but little demand or lots of demand but limited supply.. which if everyone converts to walmart coin because everyone naturally wants to eat and they are the biggest employer.. then suddenly walmart coin prices will rise and bitcoins will tank.

and dont get me started on the premine profiteering that is the backbone of sidechains idea
 

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, you still don't get it. Instead of talking about what people "envision", how about what's actually written in the code? Your examples are way off, in too many ways to list.

[ATguy]

the other thing about separate chains is.. that its no different to right now.. coins traded on exchanges via SQL databases.. and if you rebutt that there will be a masterchain that see's and regulated all the side chains.. then this masterchain that decentralises the exchanges will BLOAT..



others envision that sidechains will have the total coinage of other alts to meet but not exceed the total bitcoin 21mill.
so lets say walmart has 3million coins
so lets say Amazon has 3million coins
so lets say Apple has 3million coins
so lets say Ebay has 3million coins
so lets say Visa has 4.5million coins
so lets say Mastercard has 4.5million coins

totaling the comparable bitcoin circulation..

lets get one point clear right away it will not EVER be a fair 1walmart sat for 1bitcoin sat swap.

after all apple employee's get paid more than walmart employee's and mastercard employee's get paid more again.. so each coins value will be different. and a second issue affecting the 'supply' of coins would be number of employees aswell as how much they decide to hoard, stumping circulation to create demand.. vs swapping for any relevant price they can grab.

so although sidechains may create more transactions per second. (EG 6*7txps). the amount of usable coins is now 42million.. and some of the sidechains may have lots of supply but little demand or lots of demand but limited supply.. which if everyone converts to walmart coin because everyone naturally wants to eat and they are the biggest employer.. then suddenly walmart coin prices will rise and bitcoins will tank.

and dont get me started on the premine profiteering that is the backbone of sidechains idea
 

I believe your wrong here. The Amazon sidechain 1 coin, Apple sidechain 1 coin and Bitcoin 1 coin can be exchanged between themselves anytime and without exchange fees (just the transaction fees), thus only 21M coins can exist on Bitcoin+Sidechains.

But I dont think the benefit of sidechains for scaling is huge when everyone has to have full node of every sidechain he uses (analog of everyone has to have full Bitcoin node when he uses Bitcoin...)

[SebastianJu]

There is no such killer application for bitcoin. Let's face it, Bitcoin's benefits over fiat are currently not big enough to justify switching to it.

I agree. Bitcoin has only some advantages but it is no killer app. It might be difference once governments decide to seize funds or other things happen. But at the moment advantages are rare.

The worse that the blocksize is not raised because when the block is full and constantly a chunk of legit transactions can not get confirmed then bitcoin will become slow, expensive and unreliable on top. I mean who will use a currency where transactions maybe, maybe not, go through?