Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Innovation = higher price for desirable feature. We are the minority when it comes to hard money as a desirable feature.

You won't lock your BTC in but if you sell your BTC someone will arb.

[btcney]

NO SIDECHAIN DISCUSSION BELOW THIS LINE:


_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________

[cypherdoc]

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?

Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?

[cypherdoc]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

[cbeast]

Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

if that is the point, it won't work.

Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.

If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.

If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.

The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail. Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

Think of it, govSC may use compromised cryptographic primitives giving them a back door on all the money.
Then they essentially own key escrow on all the coins and can also automatically tax them as needed.  Seize criminal assets etc.
That pretty much solves all the government's problems.

I agree with you. I'll not keep my BTC in govSC. But I would rather trade on gov secured exchange than on MtGox.
If SC are implemented in Bitcoin then Bitcoin is my first choice.

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?

win:win
Smaller MC -> save resources. There are a lot thing  SC cannot do.
1. create new BTC
2. change amount of BTC in SC.

And there will be thousands SC (every company can have 1 SC for internal accounting, and 1 for public btcShares)
A lot of transactions for MC :-)

This SC transaction(IN/OUT rebalacing) will cost more. (they will be bigger)

Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )

MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.

[cbeast]

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?

Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?

They don't necessarily do them better. They have risk, but as minimal risk as possible. If they do in fact end up doing them better, then the MC will need to be improved. The SCs just buy time and take all the risk.

[Odalv]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

[Odalv]

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?

Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?

You cannot transfer thru SC bigger amount then SC has allocated for arbitrage.
1. You want transfer 100 BTC  but SC has only 5 btc ready for arbitrage -> you need 20 transactions
2. If MC cost less than 20 SC transactions then you will use MC

equilibrium will be found  for MC fees and SC fees.

[cbeast]

MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.

I'm not seeing that.

4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

[justusranvier]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

[Odalv]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

[notme]

We can't have democracy without choice.  I have one legit chain to point my hardware at.  I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin.  There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use.  As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks.  If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.

[notme]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

[sickpig]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

How do sidechains differ from treechains?

While we noticed many in the community comparing treechains with sidechains as potential competition, the two ideas are largely unrelated.
While treechains is a proposal to further the scaling of blockchain-based systems, the two-way peg is a mechanism for moving assets across
blockchains without a trusted party, furthering the extensibility of the entire system.

[cbeast]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

Why do you think that exchanging BTC for pegged, reversible, and insured scBTC does not improve Bitcoin scalability. You are exchanging trust for convenience. Unless you write all your own Bitcoin code, then you are already willing to trust someone else to manage your bitcoins. In this case, the SCs are apps that manage bitcoin transactions more conveniently for the cost of a little trust. If they lose your trust, you can always get some of your bitcoins back.

The concept of pegged side chains is similar to lite clients. If you no longer trust them, you can sweep your keys to a full client.

[Odalv]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

quantum computer :-)

[justusranvier]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

How do sidechains differ from treechains?

While we noticed many in the community comparing treechains with sidechains as potential competition, the two ideas are largely unrelated.
While treechains is a proposal to further the scaling of blockchain-based systems, the two-way peg is a mechanism for moving assets across
blockchains without a trusted party, furthering the extensibility of the entire system.

I was referring to this claim by cbeast, not any claims by the Blockstream team:

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?

Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

[cypherdoc]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

[NewLiberty]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

quantum computer :-)

Thanks for disambiguating.
I was thinking QC="Quality Control" and was pretty baffled as to what that would entail.