Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?  

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.  

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

[1715117407]

1715117407

[1715117407]

1715117407

[1715117407]

1715117407

[1715117407]

1715117407

[1715117407]

1715117407

[1715117407]

1715117407

[rocks]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?  

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.  

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

Agreed, a sidechain that is inflationary (by creating additional sidecoin issued assets) will not be functional because it breaks the store of value property. For such sidechains, the scBTC value in equivalent BTC will decrease over time making it so no one wants to hold the coin. And if no one holds the scBTC coins, the functionality of the sidechain is greatly reduced.

Let's take a zerocoin sidechain example. Suppose someone created an scZerocoin that enabled completely anonymous transactions and a method to safely mix coins. That is very useful functionality people are interested in. However this scZerocoin sidechain was designed to also mine sideZerocoins, which break the 1:1 transfer and cause scZerocoin assets to decrease in BTC value over time.

The problem is people are now incentivized to minimize the length of time they hold scZercoin's to as short of a time period as possible. i.e. convert BTC to scZerocoin, make anonymous transactions, then convert scZerocoin back into BTC as soon as possible. However this behavior also greatly reduces the zerocoin sidechain's functionality since: 1) there are very few other people to mix with at any given time since no one wants to hold the asset, 2) quickly withdrawing coins quickly reduces anonymity. The only way to correctly use this coin is to hold it for a reasonable period of time, but doing so causes a loss in BTC.

Such a sidechain will always lose to another implementation that guarantees a 1:1 peg by producing no sidecoin issued assets from MM. Here if someone else created scZerocoinV2 with 1:1 pegging, everyone would immediately switch and also potentially hold the scZerocoinV2 coins for lengthy periods of time.


What this means is any SC will need to be supported by transaction fees only, not speculative sidecoins generated. And as a result miners will only be interested in MM widely used SC that generate a reasonable amount of transaction revenue. Yes any SC can be MM, but there are costs on the server side and lightly used SC's with very few transaction fees won't be worth it.


Another important point is the sum total value of the Bitcoin mainchain and ALL sidechains combined will always equal 21M coins maximum. Even if there are billions of SCs created, the sum total value of all them is only the equivalent BTC that have been converted over and are available to convert back. If some SC's are inflationary, that action simply reduces the value of their own sidecoin assets, and the BTC equivalent value remains the same.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic recently, but a lot of the concern seems to be that billions of SC's will be inflationary to the Bitcoin ecosystem and reduce the store of value aspect. I simply don't buy this because their cumulative BTC equivalent value will always remain the same and within the 21M cap.

[keewee]

Not looking good...

[Odalv]

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.

What about this SC.
1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC.
2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block  and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC
3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM

[Wekkel]

Not looking good...

Buyers of physical will - in the end - determine the price.

[naplam]

Not looking good...

Buyers of physical will - in the end - determine the price.

Good luck getting to "the end". ermember "markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!

Yay!

[cypherdoc]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?  

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.  

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

[cypherdoc]

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.

What about this SC.
1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC.
2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block  and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC
3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM

And if it works, you've just made my point about how you can suck value out of Bitcoin with games by severing the link between the currency and MC

[Odalv]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?  

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin.  

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

1. Miners is wasting resources if he keeps another blockchain.
2. Miners is wasting resources on MC adding worthless hash into MC block.

[domob]

Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!

Yay!

I guess you have fun with your PM shorts recently.

[Odalv]

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.

What about this SC.
1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC.
2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block  and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC
3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM

And if it works, you've just made my point about how you can suck value out of Bitcoin with games by severing the link between the currency and MC

New transaction templates can be added as needed.  Within a few days, there will be plenty of GPU power that accepts and works on it.  Network support will be thorough long before there'll be enough clients who understand how to receive and interpret the new transaction.

Timestamp hashes are still already possible:

txin: 0.01
txout: 0.00  <appid, hash> OP_CHECKSIG
fee: 0.01

If there's an actual application like BitDNS getting ready to actually start inserting hashes, we can always add a specific transaction template for timestamps.

I like Hal Finney's idea for user-friendly timestamping. Convert the hash of a file to a bitcoin address and send 0.01 to it:

I thought of a simple way to implement the timestamp concept I mentioned above. Run sha1sum on the file you want to timestamp. Convert the result to a Bitcoin address, such as via http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashtoaddress . Then send a small payment to that address.

The money will be lost forever, as there is no way to spend it further, but the timestamp Bitcoin address will remain in the block chain as a record of the file's existence.

I understand that this is arguably not a good use of the Bitcoin distributed database, but nothing stops people from doing this so we should be aware that it may be done.

[cypherdoc]

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not?  

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as wel
l as block rewards of sidecoin.  

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

1. Miners is wasting resources if he keeps another blockchain.
2. Miners is wasting resources on MC adding worthless hash into MC block.

Yes  but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation.

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP!

Yay!

I guess you have fun with your PM shorts recently.

I closed them out one dump too soon but that's ok. Ive made  plenty off of tvbcof already. 

[cypherdoc]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.

it's not the same.  you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.  

Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp.
If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges.

I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity).

yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

Using different 2wp hacking can be harder  b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC)
This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol.

I don't have a problem with federated pegs because they don't involve protocol changes.

[cypherdoc]

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic

And it shows.

sideZerocoins are not convertible to scZerocoins and therefore BTC. They are it's own unique asset and therfore not inflationary to BTC

As far as  your second point about a fixed supply of 21M BTC always holding value despite being spread out over a thousand different sidechains? Think if it this way. You're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure coins off an unhackable ledger  and moving them over to a thousand different insecure quite hackable ledgers.  The equilibrium BTC  price after arb   will be dragged lower

[cypherdoc]

Odalv. Out  of  curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin rocket fueling up

[Wekkel]

Not looking good...

Buyers of physical will - in the end - determine the price.

Good luck getting to "the end". ermember "markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

Yes. Most phyzz investors are not in the game for a dollar value (at least, not the current dollar).

[blatchcorn]

Bitcoin rocket fueling up

I am ready!