Proposal Ethereum as the layer 2 to Bitcoin

[hv_]

This

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm

[Wind_FURY]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

[hv_]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE  the reason why miners use plants and high tech  is SCALE -

we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space  - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that )

All (size) limits some (limted) groups  want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)

Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.

[HeRetiK]

All other additional functions like smart contracts that should execute a legal contract like issuing tokens on a blockchain have to be centralized/ permissioned cause u need to be compliant with law anyway, except u want to scam others.  So pls do NOT shill or create such things that are easily enable scamming, better vote for decent institutions who are compliant with law.

Which law?

US federal Law? US state law? EU Law? German Law? Canadian Law?

Civil law? Criminal law? Contract law?

There's no global legislature and most likely there won't be within our lifetime. Most international agreements are just guidelines without repercussions. International trade, tax as well as diplomatic agreements vary vastly between the involved nations.

The legal system is incredibly fragmented, always changing and full of edge cases. It's the opposite of what a static protocol can handle, and far from simple. Additionally not everything that's legal is exactly ethical and not everything that's ethical is legal -- with the question of ethics being subjective to boot.

While humans are fallible there's a reason that most nations depend on a hierarchical court systems to tend to those laws. Maybe one day we'll have a benevolent AI acting as judge, jury and executioner (if one deems this a desirable scenario), until then legality is an issue that needs to be handled on a social level, not a technical level.

This social level is a separate protocol level of its own, if you will. As such that's where you want to keep the responsibility for legal concerns. What your post is suggesting is a mixing of protocol layers and responsibilities. I'm fairly certain that most people with a bit of a background in computer science, telecommunications and / or software engineering will agree that that's rarely a good idea.

[hv_]

All other additional functions like smart contracts that should execute a legal contract like issuing tokens on a blockchain have to be centralized/ permissioned cause u need to be compliant with law anyway, except u want to scam others.  So pls do NOT shill or create such things that are easily enable scamming, better vote for decent institutions who are compliant with law.

Which law?

US federal Law? US state law? EU Law? German Law? Canadian Law?

Civil law? Criminal law? Contract law?

There's no global legislature and most likely there won't be within our lifetime. Most international agreements are just guidelines without repercussions. International trade, tax as well as diplomatic agreements vary vastly between the involved nations.

The legal system is incredibly fragmented, always changing and full of edge cases. It's the opposite of what a static protocol can handle, and far from simple. Additionally not everything that's legal is exactly ethical and not everything that's ethical is legal -- with the question of ethics being subjective to boot.

While humans are fallible there's a reason that most nations depend on a hierarchical court systems to tend to those laws. Maybe one day we'll have a benevolent AI acting as judge, jury and executioner (if one deems this a desirable scenario), until then legality is an issue that needs to be handled on a social level, not a technical level.

This social level is a separate protocol level of its own, if you will. As such that's where you want to keep the responsibility for legal concerns. What your post is suggesting is a mixing of protocol layers and responsibilities. I'm fairly certain that most people with a bit of a background in computer science, telecommunications and / or software engineering will agree that that's rarely a good idea.

It is fragmented, sure. But how about financial markets?

How long are still the arms of SEC and CFTC ?

What ccy is still dominant?

Not much needed to see, where still that law is coming from...

So again, if Bitcoin wants to be global accepted and stay, better do not give any reason to get kicked by any of the global players. Or stay nichy and banned.

Easy to choose and it works fine btw


Honest (mining) is always your sustainable friend

[HeRetiK]

It is fragmented, sure. But how about financial markets?

How long are still the arms of SEC and CFTC ?

While the SEC's international reach is questionable to begin with, it doesn't care when no US citizens are involved. Financial regulation within the EU is vastly different from financial regulation in the US. Financial services that may be available to US citizens may be illegal to EU citizens and vice versa. Regulation in China, India, Russia and other nations of the world is different still. Financial regulations are just as fragmented as the rest of the law.

Honest (mining) is always your sustainable friend

There simply is no global consensus on what is "honest" or even "legal".

[hv_]

It is fragmented, sure. But how about financial markets?

How long are still the arms of SEC and CFTC ?

While the SEC's international reach is questionable to begin with, it doesn't care when no US citizens are involved. Financial regulation within the EU is vastly different from financial regulation in the US. Financial services that may be available to US citizens may be illegal to EU citizens and vice versa. Regulation in China, India, Russia and other nations of the world is different still. Financial regulations are just as fragmented as the rest of the law.

Honest (mining) is always your sustainable friend

There simply is no global consensus on what is "honest" or even "legal".

The facts u state clearly. For financial law and regulations there are forces in place for harmonizing cause global markets and $ dominance are facts.  All other sections of law we can neglect.

Anyway its a good idea to stay on purpose and stay honest for that.

The purpose of Bitcoin was stated 10y ago. It is P2P electronic cash ensured by PoW.

Wanna dispute that?


Any noob s getting this and thats ok.

Selling Segwit or LN under whatever skewed facts is not honest

 

[Wind_FURY]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE  the reason why miners use plants and high tech  is SCALE -

we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space  - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that )

I was just pointing that out because you said, "So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes."

Plus even if Bitcoin was CPU-only mining, there will always be some miners who will be more efficient, and more competitive than others. The reality is not all who wants to become a miner, can be a miner.

All (size) limits some (limted) groups  want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)

Do you mean the system in which only the competent are followed? Because if the Core developers were to allow every incompetent developer to work on Bitcoin, I believe the network would be a mess.

Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.

Name a project that's run like that.

[hv_]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE  the reason why miners use plants and high tech  is SCALE -

we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space  - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that )

I was just pointing that out because you said, "So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes."

Plus even if Bitcoin was CPU-only mining, there will always be some miners who will be more efficient, and more competitive than others. The reality is not all who wants to become a miner, can be a miner.

All (size) limits some (limted) groups  want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)

Do you mean the system in which only the competent are followed? Because if the Core developers were to allow every incompetent developer to work on Bitcoin, I believe the network would be a mess.

Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.

Name a project that's run like that.

Scaling really MEANS scaling - in all aspects. So running a private relay node at home is NOT scaling, rather the opposite.

This can be done better where the core protocol that dose not need much changes / rather bug Fixing (like smtp has settled and became success years ago - or u shill for smtp core devs today ?)

Such protocol MUST be as thin as possible ( better scaling options incoming  / less error prone  btw)


To see that protocol devs need to dev is a mess  -  a protocol needs only design and strict refactoring to it's minimal Jobs ( PRO-TO-COL ) no add on fearures == mess!

Add on Feature belongs to application layers - These needs devs / and stable design (protocol) to work on top.


Watch - there is a project out that has exactly this road map.  

[spartacusrex]

https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html

Seems on point.

Basically - a federated group runs the onchain multisig contract. If the majority/all agree on the outcome they sign and pay out. All the clever logic is done off chain. It can be anything at all as is not limited by the on-chain script language.

Works today on BTC. Works for any future scripts. All that matters is that those who run the simple multisig contract on-chain are in agreement as to the outcome of the more complex off-chain contract.

If there is an error in the off-chain script, it can be fixed!.. since it is all off chain anyway. They just have to agree.

Quite like it.

[Wind_FURY]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE  the reason why miners use plants and high tech  is SCALE -

we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space  - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that )

I was just pointing that out because you said, "So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes."

Plus even if Bitcoin was CPU-only mining, there will always be some miners who will be more efficient, and more competitive than others. The reality is not all who wants to become a miner, can be a miner.

All (size) limits some (limted) groups  want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)

Do you mean the system in which only the competent are followed? Because if the Core developers were to allow every incompetent developer to work on Bitcoin, I believe the network would be a mess.

Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.

Name a project that's run like that.

Scaling really MEANS scaling - in all aspects. So running a private relay node at home is NOT scaling, rather the opposite.

This can be done better where the core protocol that dose not need much changes / rather bug Fixing (like smtp has settled and became success years ago - or u shill for smtp core devs today ?)

Then to scale, you believe the network should be more scaled-in? Fewer full nodes centralized towards the miners?

Only the miners' nodes "should" matter, right?

Such protocol MUST be as thin as possible ( better scaling options incoming  / less error prone  btw)


To see that protocol devs need to dev is a mess  -  a protocol needs only design and strict refactoring to it's minimal Jobs ( PRO-TO-COL ) no add on fearures == mess!

Add on Feature belongs to application layers - These needs devs / and stable design (protocol) to work on top.


Watch - there is a project out that has exactly this road map.  

What is such "protocol" that the community should be using? I cannot wait for you to tell us.