Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

when you stop converting into the main chain and you have lots of other more valuable chains this is called inflation.

I'm still unsure where miners get there intensive to support a chain that docent provide a mining investment. when you can explain that you'll have me.

you'll have to phrase the first one differently because I don't quite get what you're saying. what do you mean by "stop converting into the main chain". how do you qualify more valuable chains? more txs?

As for your question.

if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.

as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.

[1715095227]

1715095227

[rocks]

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.

Side chains create a place to experiment with new functionality, and also create people who have an financial incentive to make sure that functionality never makes it into the main chain.

Do you where else it's possible to test new features?

Testnet.

Where is it possible to test features too invasive for even testnet?

The btcd team has produced a great feature called simnet where you can easily bootstrap a small mining network that tests modifications of the Bitcoin protocol.

All the tools needed to develop and test safe upgrades to the protocol already exist.

If the Bitcoin Core team doesn't have enough software engineering and project management resources to push the protocol forward now, employing half of them at Blockstream and adding new opcodes to Bitcoin isn't going to magically fix anything.

This is incorrect.

Sidechains provide a decentralized mechanism to implement new features, not simply test. This is the entire spirit of Bitcoin's decentralized & open design.

On the Testnet you can only test new features, not implement globally and drive adoption. The reason new features have stalled is Bitcoin has grown too big to easily change things. This a tremendous risk in the long run.

Today new features can only be implemented through centralized players in a highly political environment through global agreement to change at once, which is too hard. This both makes it next to impossible to implement new features and there is a risk of bad actors implementing negative features.

For example, let's say you want to add Zerocoin functionality. How is this even remotely possible today? The hurdles are so high that it is next to impossible. Also, assume you did do it and somehow got everyone to agree to the changes, but then you find out later the implementation was a little off and needed adjustment, again the hurdle is too high to make these corrections.

On the other hand, with sidechains any one of us could easily create and fully deploy zerocoin functionality. You could make and launch version A and I could make and launch version B, and the best version would gain global adoption. That is infinitely better than the situation today.

This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.

Instead of focusing on the beauty of this, 3 people on this thread are falsely beating a "sidecoins will cause inflation" horse that is FUD and simply not true.

[brg444]

That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

[Adrian-x]

My deductions can be wrong, but Im talking about a situation where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

As time goes on and the block chain subsidy is reduced is it conceivable that a situation could arise where I MM and as a miner I can get 95% of my income from MM SC and 5% while MM bitcoin? is it not?

Or maybe it is more like

10% from SC1, 5% from SC2, 2% from SC3, 3% from SC4, 20% from SC5, 30% from SC6, 30% from BTC.

Don't you think?

Also, the premise of your argument is that there are effectively no more tx happening on the Bitcoin network. You have yet to come up with a plausible scenario as to how this would happen. Considering its reserve status, my impression is that maybe the number of transactions would be fewer but the value of each of them would be considerably larger than on other chains.

sure!

NO

How? well, first you make the change to the protocol and the market does the rest.

so my question is is it possible yes or no?

[Adrian-x]

This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.

how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements? 


SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

[brg444]

if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.

as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.

Because Bitcoin is more secure, hence the reserve, or vault comparison.

Sure it might come a point where everyone wanting to use BTC as day-to-day currency will leave them on a sidechain for convenience purposes but while some transfer parties value convenience, anonymity or what not, others value security.

And Bitcoin is inherently more secure than any sidechains. For that reason it will continue to be used for high value transfer, inter-bank settlements and what not

I think the problem is you are misguided as to what people value. Different strokes for different folks. That's the beauty of sidechains

[Erdogan]

That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.

[_mr_e]

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

[brg444]

sure!

NO

How? well, first you make the change to the protocol and the market does the rest.

so my question is is it possible yes or no?

my answer is categorically NO.

it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red.

in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support it.

[brg444]

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

But sidechains were not create to create altcoins. There is something called altcoins that exist for that purpose

[rocks]

This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.

how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements?  

SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

You can easily innovate with new PoW options for example, those sidechains by definition could not MM with Bitcoin and would need their own miners, but that is fine. SC could also have new incentive structures (such as different fees) or different ways to store/compress blocks or different ways to communicate transactions. You can make them be anything you want.

The point clearly went over your head. SC is not for testing features, it is for implementing features.

If you've ever tried to role out new software to an installed user base you would understand why this is so useful.

[rocks]

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

Keep reading, sidechains are in no manner similar to altcoins. That is so far off the the mark that it is simply FUD at this point.

[brg444]

That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.

 

the logic is sidecoin offers a feature that is not available on the Bitcoin chain.

[brg444]

how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements? 


SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

GREAT ARGUMENTS!

Man you really showed him! I especially like the parts about "SC is a terrible solution for testing features" and "Testnet is where you test bitcoin features"

Way to go bro!

[Adrian-x]

if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.

as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.

Because Bitcoin is more secure, hence the reserve, or vault comparison.

Sure it might come a point where everyone wanting to use BTC as day-to-day currency will leave them on a sidechain for convenience purposes but while some transfer parties value convenience, anonymity or what not, others value security.

And Bitcoin is inherently more secure than any sidechains. For that reason it will continue to be used for high value transfer, inter-bank settlements and what not

I think the problem is you are misguided as to what people value. Different strokes for different folks. That's the beauty of sidechains

come on brg444 your jumping all over the show lets just finish addressing your assumptions 1 at a time you can't prove an argument on an assumption that is in debate it's like you aren't reading this thread!

if you sent out a one liner that doesn't relate the question and the respondent brings it back into focus you should address it so we can move on. this is going no where because you not reading or taking the time to comprehend. and arguing for goodness sake.  

[brg444]

The point clearly went over your head.

Don't feel too bad, it's been that way for the last 20 pages  

[brg444]

come on brg444 your jumping all over the show lets just finish addressing your assumptions 1 at a time you can't prove an argument on an assumption that is in debate it's like you aren't reading this thread!

if you sent out a one liner that doesn't relate the question and the respondent brings it back into focus you should address it so we can move on. this is going no where because you not reading or taking the time to comprehend. and arguing for goodness sake.  

I'm sorry, your  team keeps moving the goal post I'm not sure what to address anymore 

So what was your misunderstanding again?

[Deadstock]

Silver hit $15 today

[Adrian-x]

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

It was just a light comment, driven by the fact that Fiat is not actually money. Calm down.

why adopt bitcoin? is light question reflecting the ignorance that we need to destroy competition to make bitcoin succeed.  the only problem with fiat is inflation, the majority in the world believe that make it good money.

Bitcoin the Blockchain - not BTC, its the value is resides, BTC is how we manage proof of ownership. it is preserved and regulated because of the incentive structure that is what makes it viable, Bitcoin is the only shot we have an hard money, and the proposed protocol change will Preserve the 21M BTC but allow institutions to extract value from the blockchain by creating assets outside the incentive structure.

this is the same problem with fiat, 1 in a million see the problem of inflation, this proposed change will have the same effect on Bitcoin.

 

this is where you are continuously wrong.

the incentive structure doesn't get avoided, it merely expands into sub network of shared value

My deductions can be wrong, but Im talking about a situation where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

As time goes on and the block chain subsidy is reduced is it conceivable that a situation could arise where I MM and as a miner I can get 95% of my income from MM SC and 5% while MM bitcoin? is it not?

my answer is categorically NO.

it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red.

in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support it.

so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.

[brg444]

so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.

If you mean from mining SCs (note the s) then yes absolutely. Because that probably translates to a considerable amount of sidechains splitting the 70% pie with the other 30% going to the BTC chain.

That sounds plausible to me.

So your suggestion is miners have no use for the millions of dollars representing that 30% right? Yup you right they should probably drop it!