Allowing alt chains to leverage forum readership @ bitcointalk?

[Litt]

Why are we allowing this? 

Seems like the same logic as Ixcoin wanting a booth at bitcoin conf, yet we even have created a dedicated section to ease the gathering of initial mining network power by using our forum traffic as a leverage.

Just doesn't seem right to me. Alt blockchains are fine and all, but should the bitcoin community really accomodate them with such openess when they are aiming directly to compete for the same hashing power from miners that support bitcoin network? Afterall, the true value of bitcoin comes from the size of it's network and it's participants imo.

It's one thing to be open to ideas of new competing blockchains, but another to give them a forum for discussion under our own roof and letting them leverage our readership for release. I'm curious how the community feels about this.

[koin]

Afterall, the true value of bitcoin comes from the size of it's network and it's participants imo.

the true value of bitcoin comes from it having *a sufficiently* sized mining network.

there is way more mining now than it necessary to dissuade an attacker that would attempt to overtake the network.

if there is more profit mining elsewhere, miners will follow.  while it is preferable to not have noise from the alternative blockchains in the bitcoin forum, corralling them into a subforum specific for alternates seems reasonable.

if you have already invested in equipment for mining bitcoin and difficulty has not been going up because some miners have moved over to the other chains, you are actually quite appreciative of those chains.  

[jostmey]

+1 Lift

These separate chains should not be receiving press in the "bitcoin" forums.

At the very least, such posts should be limited to a section devoted to separate chains.

[Litt]

Afterall, the true value of bitcoin comes from the size of it's network and it's participants imo.

the true value of bitcoin comes from *a sufficient* size of its mining network.

I disagree. There is no such size as sufficient size. Network effect is definitely part of what defines value for bitcoin imo.

By your definition then, the blockchain forks have networks that are more insufficient in comparison because they are not sufficient enough to be secure? I assume by sufficient, you meant enough to twart 51% attacks for security reasons. Correct me if i'm wrong. Then solidcoin can easily be overwhelmed by BTCguild hashing power alone likely and bitcoin network is probably the only "sufficient" network in the world atm.

But back to the point. I meant why are we giving these alt chain the forum for discussion. Not much else. I'm not against alt chains at all, just the fact that our forum is being used as a breeding ground for alt chains in a sense. Their seems to be a direct conflict of interest imo no matter how I look at it objectively. Profit motive is another topic altogether. I'm just asking about letting have a place here to chat and setup launch and so on.

[koin]

There is no such size as sufficient size.

a ten foot tall barbed wire fence is not necessary if a four foot tall mesh fence keeps out all the threats.

there is only so much that a miner overtaking the chain can do, so an attack for economic reasons is not feasible today.

bitcoin mining's network is probably an order of magnitude larger than needed to protect the amount and size of transactions that are processed each day.

[Tasty Champa]

you going to ban talking about the us dollar too?

let's grab our pitch forks!
XD

[FreeMoney]

There is no such size as sufficient size.

a ten foot tall barbed wire fence is not necessary if a four foot tall mesh fence keeps out all the threats.

there is only so much that a miner overtaking the chain can do, so an attack for economic reasons is not feasible today.

bitcoin mining's network is probably an order of magnitude larger than needed to protect the amount and size of transactions that are processed each day.

Nobody knows how tall of a fence we need. The taller it is the more people will feel comfortable and join in as merchants, customers, and savers.

Nevertheless, I think letting the new chains have a subforum is fine. They will be canaries in the mine. We'll be able to see how double spends affect people who are actually trying to use a currency and how much power and in what exact ways attackers come.

The equilibrium is one chain imo and there is nothing compelling enough to make it not be the oldest, longest and strongest chain.

[jackjack]

+1 OP
Namecoin did it, the others have to gtfo too

[JohnDoe]

Afraid of competition? If Bitcoin could so easily get hurt from alt chains then I'm afraid it's not really a good store of value. Loss in hash rate should be negligible anyway because of merged mining.

[FreeMoney]

Afraid of competition? If Bitcoin could so easily get hurt from alt chains then I'm afraid it's not really a good store of value. Loss in hash rate should be negligible anyway because of merged mining.

Is merged mining for real?

[JohnDoe]

Is merged mining for real?

Of course, you thought it was an elaborate prank? Namecoin starts with merged mining in block 19200.

[smoothie]

Merged mining I support. I think it will pose as an interesting experiment.

I suspect that the general value of namecoins will go down just because miners/pools who make nmc as a byproduct will likley liquidate them for added BTC.

This is not to say that the value can't go up with new investors/miners who are interested.

It shall pose as something interesting to watch because I suspect every other chain that comes along will soon thereafter include merged mining in their source.

Once again that will create more supply than would have existed if merged mining did not exist.

Anyways...