Blockchain 2.0 – Let a Thousand Chains Blossom

[smooth]

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

[vnvizow]

Nope but aye! Random color patterns that tickles my OCD

CTRL+A

That's stupid, but if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid 

[bytemaster]

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money.   Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money.   There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment.  Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.    

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

[Vexatious]

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money.   Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money.   There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment.  Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.    

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

+1 +1 +1 Exactly what I was thinking.

[ahu]

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money.   Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money.   There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment.  Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.    

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

The analogy fails. You can't compare a major established company to an experimental "crypto-corporation". There can't be such thing as vendor lock-in just yet. We'll see about that in 10 years or so.

The purported lack of innovation is irrelevant at this point. What's more important is to first fix the existing problems in the infrastructure like the lack of properly working exchanges. This proposal promises to fix at least some of the problems while still leveraging the existing infrastructure. I think this a great way to move forward. At least this is far better than creating yet another altcoin with questionable real-world advantages over bitcoin.

[franky1]

We are a “blockchain 2.0” company.  Although I personally care for the success of Bitcoin, it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.

he wants to make a altcoin, thus call it something else and stop stealing bitcoins thunder. if its truly any good people will move over to it naturally no matter what you call it. just dont use a brand thats already in existance

bitcoin2.0 is NOT bitcoin. but it COULD be the next generation of CRYPTO

EG
imagine the word cryptocurrency was replaced with transportation
cars are not horse2.0, they were the next generation of transportation. although they use terms like horsepower, they are completely different things. and as such the cars have succeeded where horses have failed and people have moved away from horses as the mode of transport.

[bytemaster]

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money.   Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money.   There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment.  Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.    

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

The analogy fails. You can't compare a major established company to an experimental "crypto-corporation". There can't be such thing as vendor lock-in just yet. We'll see about that in 10 years or so.

The purported lack of innovation is irrelevant at this point. What's more important is to first fix the existing problems in the infrastructure like the lack of properly working exchanges. This proposal promises to fix at least some of the problems while still leveraging the existing infrastructure. I think this a great way to move forward. At least this is far better than creating yet another altcoin with questionable real-world advantages over bitcoin.

If you follow the work I have been doing you will see that I have gone so far beyond 'questionable real-world advantages' and instead have identified the core of what Bitcoin is.  For starters  if you use the analogy of a company Bitcoin has a meager revenue from transaction fees and large expenses by issuing new shares to pay for security.  Thus, the company is in the red to the tune of $500M per year.   It has 2 classes of stock (voting (hashpower) and capital (coins)) and thus separates the interest of these two parties, and it is slow.

I fix these problems by actually making crypto-companies that are profitable (they produce more value than they consume) and thus can pay dividends to the shareholders.  I return power to the shareholders and the result is that the we have transactions that are as fast as Ripple, irreversibly secured by 51% shareholder vote before Bitcoin can produce 2 blocks.   You see the analogy is critical to understand the benefits.   These are tangible, real-world, advantages.   

Nothing says Bitcoin cannot upgrade to Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php and become profitable however.   It seems to me that this should be a higher priority than side-chains.

[wksantiago]

Q: if this side-chain idea, two-way-peg, and merge-mining gets rolling...
Would it be possible for "metacoins" like: Mastercoin and Counterparty, which currently run on Bitcoin Blockchain be able to migrate and become a side-chain as depicted?  Thus continue to provide their utility as before?

[maaku]

Q: if this side-chain idea, two-way-peg, and merge-mining gets rolling...
Would it be possible for "metacoins" like: Mastercoin and Counterparty, which currently run on Bitcoin Blockchain be able to migrate and become a side-chain as depicted?  Thus continue to provide their utility as before?

Unlikely.

[ChuckOne]

If you follow the work I have been doing you will see that I have gone so far beyond 'questionable real-world advantages' and instead have identified the core of what Bitcoin is.  For starters  if you use the analogy of a company Bitcoin has a meager revenue from transaction fees and large expenses by issuing new shares to pay for security.  Thus, the company is in the red to the tune of $500M per year.   It has 2 classes of stock (voting (hashpower) and capital (coins)) and thus separates the interest of these two parties, and it is slow.

I fix these problems by actually making crypto-companies that are profitable (they produce more value than they consume) and thus can pay dividends to the shareholders.  I return power to the shareholders and the result is that the we have transactions that are as fast as Ripple, irreversibly secured by 51% shareholder vote before Bitcoin can produce 2 blocks.   You see the analogy is critical to understand the benefits.   These are tangible, real-world, advantages.   

Nothing says Bitcoin cannot upgrade to Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php and become profitable however.   It seems to me that this should be a higher priority than side-chains.

Upgrade Bitcoin to DPoS and you get Nxt.

[bytemaster]

If you follow the work I have been doing you will see that I have gone so far beyond 'questionable real-world advantages' and instead have identified the core of what Bitcoin is.  For starters  if you use the analogy of a company Bitcoin has a meager revenue from transaction fees and large expenses by issuing new shares to pay for security.  Thus, the company is in the red to the tune of $500M per year.   It has 2 classes of stock (voting (hashpower) and capital (coins)) and thus separates the interest of these two parties, and it is slow.

I fix these problems by actually making crypto-companies that are profitable (they produce more value than they consume) and thus can pay dividends to the shareholders.  I return power to the shareholders and the result is that the we have transactions that are as fast as Ripple, irreversibly secured by 51% shareholder vote before Bitcoin can produce 2 blocks.   You see the analogy is critical to understand the benefits.   These are tangible, real-world, advantages.   

Nothing says Bitcoin cannot upgrade to Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php and become profitable however.   It seems to me that this should be a higher priority than side-chains.

Upgrade Bitcoin to DPoS and you get Nxt.

Nxt is very close but has the following downsides:

1) more missed blocks
2) no dividends to share holders
3) slower block production
4) random individuals can manipulate the transactions with ease... nothing on the line when their turn comes up. 
5) more centralized, only those who choose to participate can exercise their shareholder influence
       - you must risk your public keys by having your wallet unlocked
       - gaining 51% of the active stake is much easier with Nxt because so much is inactive.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Nxt is very close but has the following downsides:

1) more missed blocks
2) no dividends to share holders
3) slower block production
4) random individuals can manipulate the transactions with ease... nothing on the line when their turn comes up. 
5) more centralized, only those who choose to participate can exercise their shareholder influence
       - you must risk your public keys by having your wallet unlocked
       - gaining 51% of the active stake is much easier with Nxt because so much is inactive.

This info is a little bit outdated. For example, u don't have to risk ur private keys coz u can delegate ur mining power to an empty account - https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/nrs-releases/msg8982/#msg8982. The last point about gaining 51% will become irrelevant after people run pools and small fish delegate their power to professional miners.

Also, what does "more missed blocks" mean? If it's about the bug that didn't allow to sign blocks then it's already fixed. Slower block production - 1 min between blocks doesn't look slow. Transaction manipulation - I don't get it, do u mean that miners may refuse to include some transactions? If yes, then it's not a problem IMO, Bitcoin miners include even non-prioritized transactions with 0 fee, why Nxt miners will do opposite?

[jabo38]

I have had small bitcoin transfers take half a day before, but all of the NXT transfers I have ever sent took less than a few minutes every time. 

[franky1]

I have had small bitcoin transfers take half a day before, but all of the NXT transfers I have ever sent took less than a few minutes every time. 

for 3 years all bitcoin tx's took 10 minutes. but now due to mining greed, pool owners have added so many limits, rules and discouraged accepting tx's. that bitcoins are now taking longer just to be accepted.

give NXT 3 years and the NXT dev's will start charging premiums and adding minimum spend limts too..

[bytemaster]

Nxt is very close but has the following downsides:

1) more missed blocks
2) no dividends to share holders
3) slower block production
4) random individuals can manipulate the transactions with ease... nothing on the line when their turn comes up. 
5) more centralized, only those who choose to participate can exercise their shareholder influence
       - you must risk your public keys by having your wallet unlocked
       - gaining 51% of the active stake is much easier with Nxt because so much is inactive.

This info is a little bit outdated. For example, u don't have to risk ur private keys coz u can delegate ur mining power to an empty account - https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/nrs-releases/msg8982/#msg8982. The last point about gaining 51% will become irrelevant after people run pools and small fish delegate their power to professional miners.

Also, what does "more missed blocks" mean? If it's about the bug that didn't allow to sign blocks then it's already fixed. Slower block production - 1 min between blocks doesn't look slow. Transaction manipulation - I don't get it, do u mean that miners may refuse to include some transactions? If yes, then it's not a problem IMO, Bitcoin miners include even non-prioritized transactions with 0 fee, why Nxt miners will do opposite?

Thanks for the update... looks like Nxt has solved the major issues by using a variation on delegated proof of stake.   I have a lot of respect for what Nxt is doing and for getting there faster than everyone else.

1 minute vs 15 or 30 second blocks... is slower, but I suspect Nxt could accelerate that too if they felt it would be helpful. 

So from where I sit the primary difference between Nxt and DPOS is that with DPOS you can vote against block producers rather than just delegate to block producers.  Is there any place I can go to read in detail about Nxts current implementation?

[LiteCoinGuy]

Instead of building Bitcoin 2.0 lets just put all resources to making bitcoin succeed we haven't yet and there's still a lot of work to do. Until then all bitcoin/blockchain base currencies are a waste of time.

100% agree!

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is there any place I can go to read in detail about Nxts current implementation?

Unfortunatelly, no. No a whitepaper, no comments in the code. Reading the code is the only way to get the details.

[PeterLong]

Thanks for the update... looks like Nxt has solved the major issues by using a variation on delegated proof of stake.   I have a lot of respect for what Nxt is doing and for getting there faster than everyone else.

1 minute vs 15 or 30 second blocks... is slower, but I suspect Nxt could accelerate that too if they felt it would be helpful. 

Has DPoS been implemented somewhere? How fast is it?

[RocketSingh]

If thousand chains blossom, how do i know which is the longest and honest one ?

[franky1]

If thousand chains blossom, how do i know which is the longest and honest one ?

you don't.. you simply realise that blockchain 2.0 is nothing more then another bunch of pump and dumps. instead of trying to build businesses layers ontop of bitcoin. all these guys care about is being the early adopters of a premine. and sell you a story that it is the future. purely by having another crap alt.. but calling it a 2.0