Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:16:17 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 [722] 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806419 times)
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:04:54 AM
 #14421

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back

Yes there is reason to convert back.  You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert.  Rinse and repeat.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
1481228177
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228177

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228177
Reply with quote  #2

1481228177
Report to moderator
1481228177
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228177

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228177
Reply with quote  #2

1481228177
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481228177
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228177

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228177
Reply with quote  #2

1481228177
Report to moderator
1481228177
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228177

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228177
Reply with quote  #2

1481228177
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:20:39 AM
 #14422

Two thoughts:

What would Satoshi think of sidechains?

(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )

What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?

Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.

Cool a speculation thread with people talking about SC, I read the paper the other day and almost cried. This is truly a thing of beauty, I remember writing on my notes: 21Million BTC | ∞  SC Assets

Alot of smart people working on that team/with, likely he has been involved at some stage unbeknownst to all or most.


Sidechains seem to have no downsides for Bitcoin that I can see, and solve a bunch of really thorny problems.  As long as they are defensible it should have huge value for a greatly expanded Bitcoin userbase.  Probably for us BTC hodlers as well in monetary terms as well as for more philosophical aspects.  Some sidechains could be totally 'licensed' to the government's satisfaction so all of the big names could jump on board.

My guess is that there will be some who try desperately to yank out Satoshi's 1MB cap ASAP before it's to late.  As long as the cap is in place the system will be much more difficult to subvert or monopolize and that has been driving some clued in people crazy for as long as I've been watching things.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:20:59 AM
 #14423

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back

Yes there is reason to convert back.  You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert.  Rinse and repeat.

if i were setting up a SC, i'd just fork Bitcoin, add an anonymity function, then let it run.  there'd be a good chance i could get a full on rush into my SC.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:22:44 AM
 #14424


Say a microtransactions sidechain is developed with a fixed supply of one-billion Micros, and an exchange rate of 1 BTC = 1 million Micros. That means that 1000BTC *total* will ever be able to move to the sidechain. Say the sidechain is very successful; ie, Micros work really well and start to gain a lot of real-world economic traction and value. So the 1000BTC gets transferred over.

Now say that Micros continue to see more use. Their purchasing power goes up, but this has no effect whatsoever on the purchasing power of bitcoin because the max has already moved in. Now all we have is another alt that *used to* have an easy decentralized way of buying it with bitcoin.


Arbitrage.  For example:  All 1000 bitcoin are transferred and micros increase in value to the point that:

1 million micros = $800
1 bitcoin = $400

Anyone wanting to arb this spread can sell 1 million micros for $800, buy 1 bitcoin for $400, pocket $400, convert that 1 bitcoin to 1 million micros, rinse and repeat.  Most likely, one billion micros will never be in circulation at any point in time because of arbitrage.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:29:21 AM
 #14425

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back

Yes there is reason to convert back.  You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert.  Rinse and repeat.

No that doesn't work once all the BTC are converted. The only ones you could possibly find to buy for conversion would be newly mined coins, and miners would have no reason to sell them to you. They can just convert themselves (which is what they would do).

The arbitrage you is exactly what would happen, but it would quickly convert all the BTC until there were none left, then the main chain would simply die (other than for mining purposes).



HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:45:01 AM
 #14426

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back

Yes there is reason to convert back.  You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert.  Rinse and repeat.

No that doesn't work once all the BTC are converted. The only ones you could possibly find to buy for conversion would be newly mined coins, and miners would have no reason to sell them to you. They can just convert themselves (which is what they would do).

The arbitrage you is exactly what would happen, but it would quickly convert all the BTC until there were none left, then the main chain would simply die (other than for mining purposes).


That is a bold assumption, pun intended.  If I had a satoshi for every time someone said the price of bitcoin could go to 0, then I would be rich... as I said before, if the technology of SCbtc is that great, then it deserves to win.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:48:24 AM
 #14427


Say a microtransactions sidechain is developed with a fixed supply of one-billion Micros, and an exchange rate of 1 BTC = 1 million Micros. That means that 1000BTC *total* will ever be able to move to the sidechain. Say the sidechain is very successful; ie, Micros work really well and start to gain a lot of real-world economic traction and value. So the 1000BTC gets transferred over.

Now say that Micros continue to see more use. Their purchasing power goes up, but this has no effect whatsoever on the purchasing power of bitcoin because the max has already moved in. Now all we have is another alt that *used to* have an easy decentralized way of buying it with bitcoin.


Arbitrage.  For example:  All 1000 bitcoin are transferred and micros increase in value to the point that:

1 million micros = $800
1 bitcoin = $400

Anyone wanting to arb this spread can sell 1 million micros for $800, buy 1 bitcoin for $400, pocket $400, convert that 1 bitcoin to 1 million micros, rinse and repeat.  Most likely, one billion micros will never be in circulation at any point in time because of arbitrage.


What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:58:44 AM
 #14428

Sidechains seem to have no downsides for Bitcoin that I can see, and solve a bunch of really thorny problems.  As long as they are defensible it should have huge value for a greatly expanded Bitcoin userbase.  Probably for us BTC hodlers as well in monetary terms as well as for more philosophical aspects.  Some sidechains could be totally 'licensed' to the government's satisfaction so all of the big names could jump on board.

My guess is that there will be some who try desperately to yank out Satoshi's 1MB cap ASAP before it's to late.  As long as the cap is in place the system will be much more difficult to subvert or monopolize and that has been driving some clued in people crazy for as long as I've been watching things.

tvbcof, can you take the tinfoil hat off now?

Sidechains may work brilliantly, and deliver lots of 2.0 applications, but this tech will not appear overnight. What is the point of star-ship Enterprise quality sidechains working off the MySpace of cryptocurrency?

Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Absolutely.

No matter how good SC are, they are not a substitute for allowing the existing system to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology: bandwidth.



HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:04:19 AM
 #14429


Say a microtransactions sidechain is developed with a fixed supply of one-billion Micros, and an exchange rate of 1 BTC = 1 million Micros. That means that 1000BTC *total* will ever be able to move to the sidechain. Say the sidechain is very successful; ie, Micros work really well and start to gain a lot of real-world economic traction and value. So the 1000BTC gets transferred over.

Now say that Micros continue to see more use. Their purchasing power goes up, but this has no effect whatsoever on the purchasing power of bitcoin because the max has already moved in. Now all we have is another alt that *used to* have an easy decentralized way of buying it with bitcoin.


Arbitrage.  For example:  All 1000 bitcoin are transferred and micros increase in value to the point that:

1 million micros = $800
1 bitcoin = $400

Anyone wanting to arb this spread can sell 1 million micros for $800, buy 1 bitcoin for $400, pocket $400, convert that 1 bitcoin to 1 million micros, rinse and repeat.  Most likely, one billion micros will never be in circulation at any point in time because of arbitrage.


What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:08:54 AM
 #14430

...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.


Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"?

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:18:53 AM
 #14431

...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.


Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"?

Maybe I should have said expire.  So you are saying the exchange rate can cease to exist after a certain time/block N for the entire side chain?  Or, once you convert a coin, that coin cannot be exchanged back after a certain time/block N?

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:28:10 AM
 #14432

Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Absolutely.

No matter how good SC are, they are not a substitute for allowing the existing system to scale at the rate of the slowest improving computing technology: bandwidth.


Bandwidth may or may not be the slowest improving computing technology, but it's certainly the weak link in any networked system.

It's hard enough to understand how people could fantasize about Bitcoin becoming the new gold and vanquishing the USD and all that crap.  It's much much much more difficult to understand how one could envision this with everything going on in today's hunky-dory fasion with 'Moores law' yielding joy and solutions to all the unwashed masses problems.

So-called 'bandwidth'* will never be brought to zero, but it could quite trivially be brought to a very low value under the right set of circumstances.  And there are a number of sets which would qualify.  I don't (currently) fear that my BTC would vanish in such instances, but they could become vastly less useful and convenient for a fair bit of time.  As long as Bitcoin does not actually need protective hardening against robust attacks (as is the case today) then it is mostly a toy (as is the case today.)

(*) latency is at least as big of a potential threat.
Quote
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

—Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6.


Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:33:36 AM
 #14433

...
(*) latency is at least as big of a potential threat.
Quote
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

—Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6.




Love that quote. That textbook was required reading in college.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:36:02 AM
 #14434

...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.


Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"?

Maybe I should have said expire.  So you are saying the exchange rate can cease to exist after a certain time/block N for the entire side chain?  Or, once you convert a coin, that coin cannot be exchanged back after a certain time/block N?


The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:52:27 AM
 #14435

...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.

Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"?

Maybe I should have said expire.  So you are saying the exchange rate can cease to exist after a certain time/block N for the entire side chain?  Or, once you convert a coin, that coin cannot be exchanged back after a certain time/block N?


The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way.

Then the sidechain would effectively become a separate chain... an altcoin.  I guess this is a question for the devs.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 05:30:33 AM
 #14436

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Bandwidth doesn't increase according to Moore's.
At best, Neilson's
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

This would be in time of peace, in rich nations, with good infrastructure, and other assumptions.

There is some discussion of methods to achieve this in a way that is flexible to accommodate changing conditions.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815712.0

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:32:02 AM
 #14437

...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.

Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.

Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain.  Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured.  As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic.

Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"?

Maybe I should have said expire.  So you are saying the exchange rate can cease to exist after a certain time/block N for the entire side chain?  Or, once you convert a coin, that coin cannot be exchanged back after a certain time/block N?


The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way.

Then the sidechain would effectively become a separate chain... an altcoin.  I guess this is a question for the devs.
Of course not. They can force a two-way peg through regulation. /s

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
zeetubes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 371


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:37:33 AM
 #14438

...
(*) latency is at least as big of a potential threat.
Quote
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

—Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6.




Love that quote. That textbook was required reading in college.

Ethernet just celebrated its 40th birthday and its history is arguably a better analog for bitcoin and the alts than say myspace versus facebook. It was up against Big Blue's token ring and IBM was the Fed of the computer industry at the time. IBM even commissioned professors to write papers suggesting that ethernet wasn't feasible for commercial use, but happily ethernet eventually won over and it marked the first major kick in the nuts for IBM's influence and hegemony (Microsoft and Compaq later took out further chunks). Ethernet was also a decentralized architecture and beyond interacting with the layers below and above it, it didn't care much about anything. It just provided a solid and pervasive framework. Open source didn't really exist back then and ethernet was licensed but it was much cheaper than token ring. The major reason ethernet prevailed was because it was up against only IBM and there wasn't much else in the way of noise. In a way, I think Bitcoin could have benefitted from a more restrictive licensing agreement, whilst still remaining open source. Sidechain developments may indeed be complementary but the alts are mostly an expensive and divisive distraction imo, even though there are some very promising ideas.  
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:00:59 AM
 #14439

This is open source software. Even considering stealth development of a rogue sidechain, the moment they commit the code to a sidechain, the code is out there for everyone to see.

the SC doesn't have to be rogue.  it just has to be better.

once it's determined the SC is better, the scBTC become more valuable than BTC.  the arb can't work b/c the SC chain is superior and therefore the scBTC are worth more than the BTC. those who moved first will be in a better position. once other BTC holders detect this, they will start to migrate to scBTC.  but the catch is:  there's a cost to do so. mining fees.

once miners detect this migration they will raise their fees to extortionist levels. they have to b/c accepting a devaluing BTC is risky.  

the reason this is more dangerous than simple altcoins is that you're building a system where there is a temptation for miners to merge mine these SC's thus providing them with the security they need to get up and running.  we know from Peter Todd that Hill has been aggressively attempting to get mining pools to support SC's.

A better scBTC code will be open for everyone to review the moment it is commited to a SC

Quote
Pieter Wuille, bitcoin core developer
What we hope to accomplish is allow more innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem, without needing a different currency.

If anyone premines (or otherwise inflates, even after the creation) coins on a sidechain, it would need to be encoded in the sidechain's rules. It seems unlikely people would move their assets to such a sidechain, and likely that even if there were benefits to using that sidechain, someone would simply fork it to remove the undesirable inflation. So it seems rather pointless to even implement - we certainly aren't planning to.

Assuming someone does come up with a scBTC that is so evidently superior it could precipitate a mass exodus off the parent BTC chain they will most certainly end up creating an actual altcoin using their chain as the parent chain.

This is because this new chain can only achieve Bitcoin's chain security if all nodes and hashing power switch over. A sidechain is inherently less secure than the parent, BTC blockchain.

This, I believe also nullifies your concern of mining pool "hijacking" transplants.

To entertain your scenario the network then would be left with two options to consider. Remember Good Money drives out Bad Money :

1) The hypothetic Blockstream "pre-mined" altcoin
2) The community fork of the exact same altcoin with fairer distribution (hint : 1:1 peg)

Remember that a Bitcoin-like first mover advantage is inexistent in that case because of the open source development.

Merge mining is a perfectly normal process and it can be extremely beneficial. Providing (almost) the same network security of BTC to altchains is a valuable and noteworthy contribution to their own development. What you seem to forget is that does not benefit them with the same network effect.

Name me one altcoin that people would undoubtedly switch over to if it profited from Bitcoin's network security?

I have spent some time reading the Reddit AMA and I'm sorry to say but it was disappointing to witness the childish stubbordness in your numerous comment in the face of considerably knowledgeable adversity. Your back must be aching from all this heavy lifting cause there were some serious moving of the goal post. You were corrected many time for different false assumption that you keep spreading around on this forum which I consider very concerning misinformation.

The Blockstream team has made it CLEAR they have NO interest into alternative currencies built on a sidechain. This is absolutely not their vision of sidechain and it is explained repeatedly in the white paper.

Quote
Adam Back
sidechains are a generic extension mechanism. we hope many people make use of the sidechain extension mechanism to add innovative new features centered around the bitcoin currency.



"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:07:13 AM
 #14440

...
(*) latency is at least as big of a potential threat.
Quote
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

—Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6.




Love that quote. That textbook was required reading in college.

Ethernet just celebrated its 40th birthday and its history is arguably a better analog for bitcoin and the alts than say myspace versus facebook.

Yes, agreed. Whenever someone says to me: "What if bitcoin is the next Myspace?" I happily explain to them that tcp/ip/http/smtp are all better analogies. Ethernet works too.


It was up against Big Blue's token ring and IBM was the Fed of the computer industry at the time. IBM even commissioned professors to write papers suggesting that ethernet wasn't feasible for commercial use, but happily ethernet eventually won over and it marked the first major kick in the nuts for IBM's influence and hegemony (Microsoft and Compaq later took out further chunks). Ethernet was also a decentralized architecture and beyond interacting with the layers below and above it, it didn't care much about anything. It just provided a solid and pervasive framework. Open source didn't really exist back then and ethernet was licensed but it was much cheaper than token ring. The major reason ethernet prevailed was because it was up against only IBM and there wasn't much else in the way of noise. In a way, I think Bitcoin could have benefitted from a more restrictive licensing agreement, whilst still remaining open source. Sidechain developments may indeed be complementary but the alts are mostly an expensive and divisive distraction imo, even though there are some very promising ideas.  

Ah, Token-ring. My first summer jobs as a teenager involved ripping that out of many walls and ceilings and installing Cat-3 ethernet cable instead.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Pages: « 1 ... 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 [722] 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!