Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

LukeJr is an eccentric fundamentalist reactionary, but that just makes me like him more.  Plus he's young and very bright.

At least he's upfront about his beliefs and WYSIWYG.  Attacking shitcoins like Coil, Mastercoin, and Counterparty is actually pretty lulzy stuff for a fundy!   

"Spam" is unsolicited commercial email, and has nothing to do with blockchain graffiti.  Just because you don't like the content, the Catholic stuff isn't any different than Satoshi and other early Bitcoiners' contributions. 

SatoshiDice, Mastercoin, and Counterpary's ongoing unwanted parasitic blockchain pollution is much more akin to spam than the harmless early graffiti.  You are probably just butthurt about the prayers because you hate Catholics.   

Now that the Pope has OK'd the Big Bang and evolution, both of you may suffer a little less cognitive dissonance and calm down a bit.   

Attacking almost any alt for no particularly good reason is kind of low class in my opinion, but not a showstopper.  Using pool resources without permission is a somewhat bigger deal, but like anything with Bitcoin, when one puts there trust in someone they need to be staying on the ball...and should not do so unless absolutely necessary.

The only thing I have/had against the guy is that I didn't like his attitude toward UPnP.  I never could tell whether he was just ignorant of the risks or was aware of them and seemed to favor a somewhat deceptive route (like pretty much all of the other devs to some extent.)  Anyway it was a long time ago (and no, I'm not going to spend an hour with the sucky search facilities of this forum trying to find reference.)

[1714157233]

1714157233

[1714157233]

1714157233

[1714157233]

1714157233

[iCEBREAKER]

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?

I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

Forks are the definition of evolution. Every species goes extinct. All of them. We are not the same species as our predecessors and our future progeny will not be the same species as us. Still, they trace a direct lineage. Forking the blockchain will allow a more adaptable Bitcoin that can survive the changing economic environment. Just because all the others who have tried failed, doesn't mean Gavin's version will fail. What will happen if nothing is done?

Once again, cbeast demonstrates why he fails science class.  

Bitcoin is not a natural creation, although we may borrow terms like niche and ecosystem from the vocabulary of biology to discuss it.

Bitcoin is defined by its social contract and the terms of that social contract produce its value, while the features of the software produce its utility.

Scamchains are a change to that social contract, and undermine what has thus far made Bitcoin a runaway success.

Even accepting your clumsy metaphor, some species change little in millions of years (sharks, horseshoe crabs, Coelacanths).  And blue-green algae is doing just fine, 3.5 billion years after its ancestors built stromatolites.

Bitcoin works very well and we shouldn't try to fix it until it breaks.  The proper venue for experimental variations (mutations) of Bitcoin is in the altcoin space.

[Adrian-x]

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

[cbeast]

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?

I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.

Forks are the definition of evolution. Every species goes extinct. All of them. We are not the same species as our predecessors and our future progeny will not be the same species as us. Still, they trace a direct lineage. Forking the blockchain will allow a more adaptable Bitcoin that can survive the changing economic environment. Just because all the others who have tried failed, doesn't mean Gavin's version will fail. What will happen if nothing is done?

Once again, cbeast demonstrates why he fails science class.  

Bitcoin is not a natural creation, although we may borrow terms like niche and ecosystem from the vocabulary of biology to discuss it.

Bitcoin is defined by its social contract and the terms of that social contract produce its value, while the features of the software produce its utility.

Scamchains are a change to that social contract, and undermine what has thus far made Bitcoin a runaway success.

Even accepting your clumsy metaphor, some species change little in millions of years (sharks, horseshoe crabs, Coelacanths).  And blue-green algae is doing just fine, 3.5 billion years after its ancestors built stromatolites.

Bitcoin works very well and we shouldn't try to fix it until it breaks.  The proper venue for experimental variations (mutations) of Bitcoin is in the altcoin space.

I guess you don't know much about speciation. I guess you think a "social contract" is not influenced by biology. In fact, everything related to organism, even social contracts are evolutionary. Unless you think you are immortal in which case nobody can help you.

edit: I guess I take this subject much more seriously than most people. I think the notion of money will lead to the death of our planet.

[cypherdoc]

Trolling trolls primarily in this particular case.   Edit:  What cyph's real problem is is actually kind of an interesting mystery to me at this point, but clearly from the content of his recent work he has one.  It's pretty obvious and other's have noted it too.

I'm pretty sure the problem is simply ego and inability to concede the inappropriateness of his inital stance.

Not so sure.  Although the guy has always been 'active' shall we say, he has really bumped it up a notch for the sidechains thing.  My best guess is that he invested some of his stash into a venture which is predicated on Bitcoin going the Bitcoin Foundation direction (e.g., an alt or more likely a Coinbase clone, both of which will be reamed by functional sidechains) and is in a desperate panic right about now.  It wouldn't surprise me if he's flying all over the country in an attempt to ensure that he isn't the partner that takes the lions-share of the ass-reaming.

The only man crush around here is you for me.

No, I have no alternate investment in the space other than Bitcoin. It should be clear I simply don't believe in SC's. I think they will hurt Bitcoin and that is all I'm  fighting against.

[Odalv]

Trolling trolls primarily in this particular case.   Edit:  What cyph's real problem is is actually kind of an interesting mystery to me at this point, but clearly from the content of his recent work he has one.  It's pretty obvious and other's have noted it too.

I'm pretty sure the problem is simply ego and inability to concede the inappropriateness of his inital stance.

Not so sure.  Although the guy has always been 'active' shall we say, he has really bumped it up a notch for the sidechains thing.  My best guess is that he invested some of his stash into a venture which is predicated on Bitcoin going the Bitcoin Foundation direction (e.g., an alt or more likely a Coinbase clone, both of which will be reamed by functional sidechains) and is in a desperate panic right about now.  It wouldn't surprise me if he's flying all over the country in an attempt to ensure that he isn't the partner that takes the lions-share of the ass-reaming.

The only man crush around here is you for me.

No, I have no alternate investment in the space other than Bitcoin. It should be clear I simply don't believe in SC's. I think they will hurt Bitcoin and that is all I'm  fighting against.

SC's already exist. Exchanges, web wallets, payment processors are  SC's. Those SC's require trusted entity.

You think Bitcoin will be better without those services ?
I'm sure Bitcoin will be better if we can create those services without trust to service provider.

[Zarathustra]

Forks are the definition of evolution. Every species goes extinct. All of them. We are not the same species as our predecessors ...

Indeed ...

[NewLiberty]

Trolling trolls primarily in this particular case.   Edit:  What cyph's real problem is is actually kind of an interesting mystery to me at this point, but clearly from the content of his recent work he has one.  It's pretty obvious and other's have noted it too.

I'm pretty sure the problem is simply ego and inability to concede the inappropriateness of his inital stance.

Not so sure.  Although the guy has always been 'active' shall we say, he has really bumped it up a notch for the sidechains thing.  My best guess is that he invested some of his stash into a venture which is predicated on Bitcoin going the Bitcoin Foundation direction (e.g., an alt or more likely a Coinbase clone, both of which will be reamed by functional sidechains) and is in a desperate panic right about now.  It wouldn't surprise me if he's flying all over the country in an attempt to ensure that he isn't the partner that takes the lions-share of the ass-reaming.

The only man crush around here is you for me.

No, I have no alternate investment in the space other than Bitcoin. It should be clear I simply don't believe in SC's. I think they will hurt Bitcoin and that is all I'm  fighting against.

SC's already exist. Exchanges, web wallets, payment processors are  SC's. Those SC's require trusted entity.

You think Bitcoin will be better without those services ?
I'm sure Bitcoin will be better if we can create those services without trust to service provider.

SC seem more like Crypto Currency Casasius coins to me.
Bitcoin Inside.

[cypherdoc]

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

[molecular]

This thread was more interesting to read prior to SC discussion taking over...

I agree. Now we have to wade through pages of that... it's interesting, but I don't have the time.

I used to come here for news and insights on metals vs. bitcoin and markets in general.

Can't even say wether something was provided regarding the recent metals slamdown (or USD run) because I keep having to skip 5 pages at a time.

[inca]

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.

[cypherdoc]

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.

But this is where an altcoin added to the SC could factor in.

[Odalv]

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.

[inca]

The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.

But this is where an altcoin added to the SC could factor in.

As i have said previously, a fixed two-way peg doesn't IMO endanger the main bitcoin blockchain as long as it is truly fixed.

Where you consider several chains linked together via floating pegs then things get difficult to imagine clearly.

If a sidechain based on an amazing new coin with vastly superior properties to bitcoin (USDcoin) arises which is linked via a floating peg to the main chain then I could conceivably see it causing problems in the long term if lots of coins migrate over and miners decide to move over chasing rewards. But I still think we come back to the same old argument that no altcoin has ever come even slightly close to dethroning btc despite numerous permutations in existence. I personally wouldn't be interested in moving my coins through a floating peg to a side chain, would you?

[cypherdoc]

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.

We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS. 

[Odalv]

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.

We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS. 

Sorry, you do not get it.
 - it is not POS => it can be timestamp-server (I can use bitcoin for timestamping or use existing timestamp service or create new one). It can be hashing oracle.

 - I do not force you to use my timestamp-server => you and your business partners can use your own. You can run your own business network on your VPN.

This is my last reply to this topic.

[cypherdoc]

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.

We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS.  

Sorry, you do not get it.
 - it is not POS => it can be timestamp-server (I can use bitcoin for timestamping or use existing timestamp service or create new one). It can be hashing oracle.

 - I do not force you to use my timestamp-server => you and your business partners can use your own. You can run your own business network on your VPN.

This is my last reply to this topic.

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

[Odalv]

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

[cypherdoc]

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

[Odalv]

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.