Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 11:12:23 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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] 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807769 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 01:10:09 AM
 #14761

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.

it might, the argument is : why do you need to create a new currency to support your altchain? what is your motive? can you not use BTC as a 1:1 peg?

it is an handicap for alt scammers

You can't pay for mining with BTC. That alone is a reason. In fact that's the original reason BTC exists at all. From the point of view of a sidechain, BTC is an external currency. If you could use BTC to secure a sidechain, you can use USD to secure a standalone blockchain. You can't.

Other people will probably want to do proof-of-stake (used for most new altcoins today, I think) or other things with different monetary properties. That also can't be done BTC, because you can't stake BTC into existence on the side chain.

Finally there are people who will simply not want to be associated with BTC for reasons of branding, marketing, distinctiveness, dislike or suspicion of BTC, etc. They won't use BTC backing simply because they can, at least not in a straight 1:1 form.

The question "Why do you need to create a new currency?" exposes a bias. From a neutral perspective, one might just as easily ask "Why should I use BTC or BTC backing as my currency?" If you set aside the bias, there is no technical necessity to use BTC or exclusively BTC on a side chain.

These may all sound dumb to you, and perhaps they all are, but they can and will be done anyway.



1481368343
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368343

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368343
Reply with quote  #2

1481368343
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481368343
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481368343

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481368343
Reply with quote  #2

1481368343
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 01:21:57 AM
 #14762

You can't pay for mining with BTC.

Not sure I understand this part... If you do a straight 1:1 peg you don't need mining of the sidechain right? The movement of assets between that chain is basically fit into transactions that goes into BTC blocks is it not?

As for the rest, they're free to do whatever they want, but I find I have every reason to have a BTC bias.

"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 28, 2014, 01:25:15 AM
 #14763

...
Other people will probably want to do proof-of-stake (used for most new altcoins today, I think) or other things with different monetary properties. That also can't be done BTC, because you can't stake BTC into existence on the side chain.
...


And that's probably going to be the most popular answer to: "Why aren't you just using a sidechain? Why do you need your own new currency?"

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 01:31:30 AM
 #14764

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.

it might, the argument is : why do you need to create a new currency to support your altchain? what is your motive? can you not use BTC as a 1:1 peg?

it is an handicap for alt scammers

You can't pay for mining with BTC. That alone is a reason. In fact that's the original reason BTC exists at all. From the point of view of a sidechain, BTC is an external currency. If you could use BTC to secure a sidechain, you can use USD to secure a standalone blockchain. You can't.

Other people will probably want to do proof-of-stake (used for most new altcoins today, I think) or other things with different monetary properties. That also can't be done BTC, because you can't stake BTC into existence on the side chain.

Finally there are people who will simply not want to be associated with BTC for reasons of branding, marketing, distinctiveness, dislike or suspicion of BTC, etc. They won't use BTC backing simply because they can, at least not in a straight 1:1 form.

The question "Why do you need to create a new currency?" exposes a bias. From a neutral perspective, one might just as easily ask "Why should I use BTC or BTC backing as my currency?" If you set aside the bias, there is no technical necessity to use BTC or exclusively BTC on a side chain.

These may all sounds dumb to you, and perhaps they all are, but they can and will be done anyway.


Yes, you can create as many ScamSC as you want. Everybody has to ask yourself few question.
 - will I able to withdraw as many bitcoin as I want to send ? (probably yes, if no new scam coin are created) ?
 - is there some new utility I want to use ? (what is the utility of new sidechain ... is it pump/dump ?)
 - is not my chance to win scLotto by sending money there better ?
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 01:34:29 AM
 #14765

...
The question "Why do you need to create a new currency?" exposes a bias. From a neutral perspective, one might just as easily ask "Why should I use BTC or BTC backing as my currency?" If you set aside the bias, there is no technical necessity to use BTC or exclusively BTC on a side chain.
...


If the bias is that we want crypto-currency to be capable of being a long-term store of value, then yes, that question exposes a bias.

As I've said before, if an alt ever started to threaten bitcoin's market-cap dominance, it would severely risk undermining bitcoin's scarcity argument, therefore drastically reducing people's willingness to hold crypto-currency for any longer than they need in order to use it as a payment network or what have you. Clearly there's still be some value (potentially large, given enough usage), but it'd be a lot less, at least near/medium-term, than if people want to hold it as a long-term store of value or inflation-hedge type asset.

There's some flexibility in that depiction, of course, but I think that's the "bias" being exposed when people promote bitcoin over alts.

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:02:11 AM
 #14766

You can't pay for mining with BTC.

Not sure I understand this part... If you do a straight 1:1 peg you don't need mining of the sidechain right? The movement of assets between that chain is basically fit into transactions that goes into BTC blocks is it not?

As for the rest, they're free to do whatever they want, but I find I have every reason to have a BTC bias.

wtf? Your lucky I'm on planes and on my android otherwise id rip you apart. And you're the resident shill?

Of course the sc needs mining. In fact, initially it would be merge mining if its lucky. There's been plenty discussion and skepticism this will even occur due to the insecurities.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:06:39 AM
 #14767

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhpcke
Quote
Atomic swaps allow transfer to happen without waiting on the peg... a result of this means that a single 2wp transfer can basically exit all the people at once.

It does effectively mean that a sidechain abandoned by miners may end up costing more in transaction fees to exit than you'd like. The situation is much brighter than being left with altcoins no one wants, and also ignores the possible (likely?) existance of altruistic miners that continue to mine along just because.

But if some implementation of SC (I do not think SC as idea) become scam or there is a bug then bitcoins may be lost.

So in your opinion, does this mean everyone can get their BTC back in the event of a SC failure with just a larger tx fee?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:09:51 AM
 #14768

As I've said before, if an alt ever started to threaten bitcoin's market-cap dominance, it would severely risk undermining bitcoin's scarcity argument, therefore drastically reducing people's willingness to hold crypto-currency for any longer than they need in order to use it as a payment network or what have you. Clearly there's still be some value (potentially large, given enough usage), but it'd be a lot less, at least near/medium-term, than if people want to hold it as a long-term store of value or inflation-hedge type asset.

There's some flexibility in that depiction, of course, but I think that's the "bias" being exposed when people promote bitcoin over alts.

I don't really think there is anything wrong with that theory. I don't entirely subscribe to it, but I respect people who do. As this is all new, the actual conclusion is unknown.

The difference is that when the conclusion is assumed (as is the case when asking "Why do you need ...") rather than stated as a theory, it becomes a bias.

rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:24:51 AM
 #14769

As I've said before, if an alt ever started to threaten bitcoin's market-cap dominance, it would severely risk undermining bitcoin's scarcity argument, therefore drastically reducing people's willingness to hold crypto-currency for any longer than they need in order to use it as a payment network or what have you. Clearly there's still be some value (potentially large, given enough usage), but it'd be a lot less, at least near/medium-term, than if people want to hold it as a long-term store of value or inflation-hedge type asset.

I also wished for years that alts would just die already. They did not. It seems not likely that they will go away, rather they will bubble and some reach a medium market cap, before waning into obscurity. And always hundreds of shitcoins will try to reach the place in the moon. The total market cap of alts vs. BTC is the metric to be followed. BTC is "safe" as long as it is 10-20% or so, of BTC's market cap.

Creating altcoins is just so easy. Ingame item CKG's (created 2 weeks ago) "fully mined" marketcap is BTC483, with which it actually beats NeXT Horizon and Boolberry('s emitted marketcap). CKG is not crypto though, but could easily be.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
 #14770

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.



yep
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:51:36 AM
 #14771

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhpcke
Quote
Atomic swaps allow transfer to happen without waiting on the peg... a result of this means that a single 2wp transfer can basically exit all the people at once.

It does effectively mean that a sidechain abandoned by miners may end up costing more in transaction fees to exit than you'd like. The situation is much brighter than being left with altcoins no one wants, and also ignores the possible (likely?) existance of altruistic miners that continue to mine along just because.

But if some implementation of SC (I do not think SC as idea) become scam or there is a bug then bitcoins may be lost.

So in your opinion, does this mean everyone can get their BTC back in the event of a SC failure with just a larger tx fee?

It is very complex to answer.

SideChain can be created in many ways (but obviously you do want to accept this fact)
SideChain(IDEA) is "concept?" what describes your Bitcoin transaction off the main chain (transaction are not recorded in bitcoin blockchain).
One example of sidechain is bitcoin-exchange (one of them is Bitstamp). Bitstamp exists, and Bitstamp creates off-chain bitcoin transaction.(buys/sells bitcoins)

In term of SideChain(IDEA) it is centralized and ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain. -> It exists now.
 - you can lock your bitcoins in bitstamp controlled address and trade
 - Bitstamp is only miner who creates blockchain (history of trades) . Bitstamp mine transactions -> (who sold/bought, add-to-order-book, market-buy/sell, ... and so on) and Bitstamp publish orderbook.
 - and only Bitstamp can unlock your bitcoin (bitstampBTC)

Bitstamp is two-way-peg SC with 1:1 exchange rate and  ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain

==
Blockstream paper describes how to create different SideChain
 - one of them is Federated peg (M of N entities controlled sidechain) -> it can be created without changes to bitcoin protocol now.
 - I think, it is better than centralized one

==
and finally few variants how to create decentralized (not supported by bitcoin now)

==
this decentralized SC can be even combined with (M of N SC's) or (Single Entity SC) in case there is not enough mining power


=> The questions is  IF/HOW add decentralized SC's.



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:54:25 AM
 #14772

You can't pay for mining with BTC.

Not sure I understand this part... If you do a straight 1:1 peg you don't need mining of the sidechain right? The movement of assets between that chain is basically fit into transactions that goes into BTC blocks is it not?

As for the rest, they're free to do whatever they want, but I find I have every reason to have a BTC bias.

wtf? Your lucky I'm on planes and on my android otherwise id rip you apart. And you're the resident shill?

Of course the sc needs mining. In fact, initially it would be merge mining if its lucky. There's been plenty discussion and skepticism this will even occur due to the insecurities.



yeah that was an embarassing quote  Undecided didn't come out the way I would've liked. of course I understand the SC needs to be mined but I got confused by smooth comment..

moving on...

I'm all fine with having arguments with you and respect your opinion but can we stop with the name calling? I'm no shill for everyone here and I've got no agenda.

I'm sorry if you felt disrespected by some of my comments, I don't know if that's the case, but I'm only questioning the motives of your scepticism. You do bring some good points but others are such a stretch of the imagination I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:56:15 AM
 #14773


I don't really think there is anything wrong with that theory. I don't entirely subscribe to it, but I respect people who do. As this is all new, the actual conclusion is unknown.

The difference is that when the conclusion is assumed (as is the case when asking "Why do you need ...") rather than stated as a theory, it becomes a bias.



No. Asking is leaving the argument open for an acceptable answer. I never said "You don't need"

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:58:36 AM
 #14774

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhpcke
Quote
Atomic swaps allow transfer to happen without waiting on the peg... a result of this means that a single 2wp transfer can basically exit all the people at once.

It does effectively mean that a sidechain abandoned by miners may end up costing more in transaction fees to exit than you'd like. The situation is much brighter than being left with altcoins no one wants, and also ignores the possible (likely?) existance of altruistic miners that continue to mine along just because.

But if some implementation of SC (I do not think SC as idea) become scam or there is a bug then bitcoins may be lost.

So in your opinion, does this mean everyone can get their BTC back in the event of a SC failure with just a larger tx fee?

It is very complex to answer.

SideChain can be created in many ways (but obviously you do want to accept this fact)
SideChain(IDEA) is "concept?" what describes your Bitcoin transaction off the main chain (transaction are not recorded in bitcoin blockchain).
One example of sidechain is bitcoin-exchange (one of them is Bitstamp). Bitstamp exists, and Bitstamp creates off-chain bitcoin transaction.(buys/sells bitcoins)

In term of SideChain(IDEA) it is centralized and ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain. -> It exists now.
 - you can lock your bitcoins in bitstamp controlled address and trade
 - Bitstamp is only miner who creates blockchain (history of trades) . Bitstamp mine transactions -> (who sold/bought, add-to-order-book, market-buy/sell, ... and so on) and Bitstamp publish orderbook.
 - and only Bitstamp can unlock your bitcoin (bitstampBTC)

Bitstamp is two-way-peg SC with 1:1 exchange rate and  ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain

==
Blockstream paper describes how to create different SideChain
 - one of them is Federated peg (M of N entities controlled sidechain) -> it can be created without changes to bitcoin protocol now.
 - I think, it is better than centralized one

==
and finally few variants how to create decentralized (not supported by bitcoin now)

==
this decentralized SC can be even combined with (M of N SC's) or (Single Entity SC) in case there is not enough mining power


=> The questions is  IF/HOW add decentralized SC's.





you didn't answer my question.

From what Maxwell said, it sounds like he said he would be able to get everyone's BTC unlocked in case of a failure of SC.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:07:42 AM
 #14775

acceptable answer.

That's the whole point. You are assuming an "acceptable" answer is required. It isn't.

For many the answer will simply be "because that's what we want."

Many of the DOGE community want nothing to do with BTC and being a BTC side chain would be a negative to them, not a positive.

It has nothing to do with features or "need." They don't need to justify themselves to you or anyone else. It is more about identity and distinctiveness, and that has demonstrated a lot of importance in the market with the #2 and #3 coins (when I exclude Ripple and BSTX) being LTC, which have no significant feature differentiation with BTC, and DOGE, which has only a small monetary differentiation (perpetual maintenance reward).

I'm not in this group, but I recognize it for what it is.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:13:04 AM
 #14776

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhpcke
Quote
Atomic swaps allow transfer to happen without waiting on the peg... a result of this means that a single 2wp transfer can basically exit all the people at once.

It does effectively mean that a sidechain abandoned by miners may end up costing more in transaction fees to exit than you'd like. The situation is much brighter than being left with altcoins no one wants, and also ignores the possible (likely?) existance of altruistic miners that continue to mine along just because.

But if some implementation of SC (I do not think SC as idea) become scam or there is a bug then bitcoins may be lost.

So in your opinion, does this mean everyone can get their BTC back in the event of a SC failure with just a larger tx fee?

It is very complex to answer.

SideChain can be created in many ways (but obviously you do want to accept this fact)
SideChain(IDEA) is "concept?" what describes your Bitcoin transaction off the main chain (transaction are not recorded in bitcoin blockchain).
One example of sidechain is bitcoin-exchange (one of them is Bitstamp). Bitstamp exists, and Bitstamp creates off-chain bitcoin transaction.(buys/sells bitcoins)

In term of SideChain(IDEA) it is centralized and ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain. -> It exists now.
 - you can lock your bitcoins in bitstamp controlled address and trade
 - Bitstamp is only miner who creates blockchain (history of trades) . Bitstamp mine transactions -> (who sold/bought, add-to-order-book, market-buy/sell, ... and so on) and Bitstamp publish orderbook.
 - and only Bitstamp can unlock your bitcoin (bitstampBTC)

Bitstamp is two-way-peg SC with 1:1 exchange rate and  ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain

==
Blockstream paper describes how to create different SideChain
 - one of them is Federated peg (M of N entities controlled sidechain) -> it can be created without changes to bitcoin protocol now.
 - I think, it is better than centralized one

==
and finally few variants how to create decentralized (not supported by bitcoin now)

==
this decentralized SC can be even combined with (M of N SC's) or (Single Entity SC) in case there is not enough mining power


=> The questions is  IF/HOW add decentralized SC's.





you didn't answer my question.

From what Maxwell said, it sounds like he said he would be able to get everyone's BTC unlocked in case of a failure of SC.

lol, Maxwell  cannot unlock  everyone's BTC from Bitstamp nor MtGox (I though, it is obvious)

Edit:

Maxwell brings new ideas how to prevent Karpeles from stealing your bitcoins

Edit2:

How to convert Central authority sidechain(MtGox-exchange) into decentralized (or at least M of N authorities) sidechain.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:13:09 AM
 #14777

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.



yep

In fact, just thinking out loud here, you could create demand (and therefore value) for such a coin by requiring payment of a fee in SideCoin to perform the transaction that will unlock real BTC. Such a transaction could burn the fee, increasing scarcity and value, which incentivizes more mining making the side chain more secure.

There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:13:50 AM
 #14778

That's the whole point. You are assuming an "acceptable" answer is required. It isn't.

For many the answer will simply be "because that's what we want."

Many of the DOGE community want nothing to do with BTC and being a BTC side chain would be a negative to them, not a positive.

It has nothing to do with features or "need." They don't need to justify themselves to you or anyone else. It is more about identity and distinctiveness, and that has demonstrated a lot of importance in the market with the #2 and #3 coins (when I exclude Ripple and BSTX) being LTC, which have no significant feature differentiation with BTC, and DOGE, which has only a small monetary differentiation (perpetual maintenance reward).

I'm not in this group, but I recognize it for what it is.

Sure, let the loonies have fun with their memecoin. The reason I'm expecting an "acceptable" or reasonable answer is to consider whether there is a prospect for innovation with that new coin.

I'm sorry but "identity and distinctiveness" is a recipe for disaster. It's all fun and games until people realize their assets are better invested elsewhere. I'll be honest I can't quite understand what it is these people think they have got going with their dogecoins but surely once the novelty and cool factor wears off they'll be looking for a way out.

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:27:35 AM
 #14779

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.



yep

In fact, just thinking out loud here, you could create demand (and therefore value) for such a coin by requiring payment of a fee in SideCoin to perform the transaction that will unlock real BTC.  Such a transaction could burn the fee, increasing scarcity and value, which incentivizes more mining making the side chain more secure.

There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.





yes, I'm seeing lots of comments from altcoin people asking how to use SC's to hitch their altcoins into the bitcoin network. That's just swell.

Why are we doing this again?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:31:24 AM
 #14780

Sure, let the loonies have fun with their memecoin. The reason I'm expecting an "acceptable" or reasonable answer is to consider whether there is a prospect for innovation with that new coin.

Innovation comes from innovative people and doesn't cease to be innovation just because such people happen to be working on an altcoin. The fact is that many altcoins have smart and creative people working on their development who are doing interesting innovative things. That's not really a function of which coin they happen to work on.

To clarify, by many I mean in absolute terms, and even there the number is probably not more than 20-30. The vast majority of the 1000+ altcoins are worthless scams. Most of those are copy-paste and don't even claim to be innovative anyway. Some number are likely scams in some sense but also innovative in some sense.

Also, it is possible to be innovative in marketing and community building. Maybe you don't agree with that, but if you think the Bitcoin marketing, community, and reputation is perfect, we will have to agree to disagree. It is no surprise at all to me that some reasonable people may like and support cryptocoins generally but want no part in Bitcoin specifically.


Pages: « 1 ... 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] 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 ... 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!