Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ?

No, not wait until last minute. Work together now to expand block size.

[notme]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange.  If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

[brg444]

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i? 

 

you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!?

the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !?

what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function?

[brg444]

In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?

if not, do you want it to be?

Separate as in one existing without the other?

Of course not.

But this is not the same as saying BTC can't move around and be used on other sidechains.

Yes it is. Those SC's are fundamentally different with different properties and security. 

But conserve the ledger intact. That is all that matters right?

[notme]

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ?

No, not wait until last minute. Work together now to expand block size.

But doesn't that hurt the incentive structure for miners?  Now we have to store more information, use more bandwidth and cpu to handle more transactions, decreasing the subsidy/"resource expenditure".  Block scarcity will also decrease, keeping transaction fees low.

As a miner, I'll take replacing a NOOP with a contestable SPV proof over raising the block size any day of the week.

[cypherdoc]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange.  If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

But yet you would not trust my incessant buy recommendations during  the entire year when you were subbed to my newsletter when bitcoin went straight up.

[Adrian-x]

...

so no contest then.

no contest, I win, right?
 

so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that.

so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth.

if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible.
  

[brg444]

Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.

 

You'll risk a network and infrastructure several orders of magnitude bigger because "the recovery after 0.8.1" was impressive?  

You're supposed to be the guy who wants to protect the Bitcoin blockchain   That is not a very cautious way to go about it

[cypherdoc]

I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i? 

 

you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!?

the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !?

what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function?

Yes, just do it on MC

[notme]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange.  If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not.  HOW does SC break the incentive structure?  Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years.  Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins.

But yet you would not trust my incessant buy recommendations during  the entire year when you were subbed to my newsletter when bitcoin went straight up.

Even if we pretend you aren't full of shit, how does that even come close to answering my simple question?  You clearly don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

[cypherdoc]

You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.

Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case?  

[Adrian-x]

Everybody here knows I'm dead against altcoins and have been very vocal about it to the point I irritated smoothie. But at least altcoins don't ask for a source code change in a sign of decency.

 

but sidechains are there to save us from altcoins while preserving any useful features they might come up with.


why can't you understand this 

1:1 sidechains + altcoins features = new & improved Bitcoin ledger = everybody win!

It is very tragic that such a Bitcoin supporter as yourself cannot see the light 

cypher may be right that investing in them is foolish, i disagree with him on that but hold no significant alts at this time. But no one needs saving from Altcoins that's a preposterous idea to be discussed over at the altcoin forum.

[brg444]

no that's wrong that's what you think you are getting, read appendix A of federated pegs.

The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.

Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin.  

if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is?

But that's the point my friend! Sidechains are not decentralized exchange for altcoins! It is much more interesting than that.

And you concern about miners abandoning the mainchain is not very plausible considering its block subsidy will continue for a long, long time and every miners will want a piece of that.

[cypherdoc]

I need to sign off for at least am hour

[Adrian-x]

Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period

But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat  

They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat

Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange.  If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming.

Precisely.

To consider sidechains and think only of sidecoins booted on top of it is so ass-backward and stupid I don't know where to begin.

To consider sidechains and think only of the good ideas it enables and ignore the perils is stupid I don't know where to begin. you can begin comprehensive reading at page 698

[brg444]

so many think there will be more than 2 SC you are a minority of 1 on that.

so I consed my points that SC are a threat because you can not justify the need for more that 2 and I dont think that warrants a protocol change or or wasting bandwidth.

if you can agree that there will be thousands (eg community coins) as some suggest, and they may grow exponentially then yes I'm happy that you think all the scenarios I proposed are possible.
  

You guys really just skimmed through my post heh 

Of course there will be thousands of SC serving differents financial purposes (stock issuance, etc. etc.)

But you can only attach so many additional functions to Bitcoin as money (store of value, means of exchange). Bitcoin as is works perfectly fine as store of value but has some deficiencies as a mean of exchange. Sidechains are here to solve these without relying on trusted third parties in a way that is interoperable with Bitcoin blockchain, preserves the Bitcoin ledger and prevents issues of trust and fractional reserve in the most decentralized way possible

[Adrian-x]

In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?

if not, do you want it to be?

Bitcoin the currency will never leave Bitcoin the Blockchain, even with sidechains.  Sidechains just gives you more potential uses for your Bitcoins.... locking them gains you tokens that have added functionality.

So you agree with Austin Hill then that BTC the currency is separate from the value in the blockchain? (you can secure your Private Key in a SC move the value across, and later unlock your private key)

how do you incentivise miners to secure the Bitcoin blockchain if they get there revenue from a MM SC, when the value moves off the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

[brg444]

You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.

Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case?  

You still don't get it, do you?

Bitcoin is the motor behind sidechains. But you HAVE to continue coming up with conspiracy theory heh  

[Adrian-x]

In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?

if not, do you want it to be?

Separate as in one existing without the other?

Of course not.

Do you want it to Separate?

[brg444]

To consider sidechains and think only of the good ideas it enables and ignore the perils is stupid I don't know where to begin. you can begin comprehensive reading at page 698

 

but we've left you guys dozens of page to come up with a plausible, considerable risk that would warrant not to integrate sidechains to Bitcoin and you have continuously failed.

face it, the upside is considerably more interesting AND plausible than any of the strech of the mind paranoiac scenario your team has come up with