Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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.

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.

yes one could have a scripted mining system, or some other format that was not MM, but it wouldn't be very secure from hacking and a week point if we have BTC in that SC so not likely.

so fee based reward innovation only, how about incentivising Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function. every innovation i crave for an Altcoin cant be done in a SC.

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

[brg444]

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?

[justusranvier]

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?

Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is.

Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains.

In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream.

Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests.

[Adrian-x]

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!

that's not economically practical, make a futures trade on some basket of SC's and 51% attack Bitcoin that economically incentive.

[brg444]

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?

Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is.

Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains.

In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream.

Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests.

It seems obvious to me.

They're the redhat for Bitcoin.

They build decentralized infrastructure for companies on top of sidechains.

Let me spin the question around and ask how they could maliciously profit from sidechains?

[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.

yes one could have a scripted mining system, or some other format that was not MM, but it wouldn't be very secure from hacking and a week point if we have BTC in that SC so not likely.

so fee based reward innovation only, how about incentivising Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function. every innovation i crave for an Altcoin cant be done in a SC.

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Regarding "Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function".

This would change the Sound Money aspect because it changes the release and quantity of btc. Sidechains rightly do not effect this in any manner. The fact you are making this argument after claiming SC's are inflationary is shocking.

Regarding " its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin."

Sidechains ARE bitcoin, there is little need for features in a sidechains to be in the main chain also (although very popular ones can be moved).

You must not be a programmer, the main chain is a parent class and a side chain is a child class. This is the right way to look at it.

Adrian at this point it is clear you don't know what you are talking about, you last several replies have demonstrated no understanding of the topic or of bitcoin.

[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!

that's not economically practical, make a futures trade on some basket of SC's and 51% attack Bitcoin that economically incentive.

Hmm no. Bitcoin is the most secure chain. There is no more economic incentive to attack it with sidechains than there is without.

[justusranvier]

It seems obvious to me.

They're the redhat for Bitcoin.

They build decentralized infrastructure for companies on top of sidechains.

Let me spin the question around and ask how they could maliciously profit from sidechains?

Their customers will attempt to build moats by creating improvements in sidechains, and those moats would be threatened by having that capability in Bitcoin.

If their revenue comes from having customers, they have an incentive to take actions that benefit their customers, such as using their influence to delay or block progress in Bitcoin.

[Adrian-x]

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?

Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is.

Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains.

In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream.

Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests.

I thought they made it pretty clear, I understood it like this: we are a blockchain technology company, we promise to make technology to keep your BTC save we won't inflate the 21M cap but we will extract and leverage the value kept in the blockchain, and for the miners, don't worry about the diminishing bitcoin block reward we've got something special for you, infinite fees and Merged Mining.

[brg444]

Their customers will attempt to build moats by creating improvements in sidechains, and those moats would be threatened by having that capability in Bitcoin.

If their revenue comes from having customers, they have an incentive to take actions that benefit their customers, such as using their influence to delay or block progress in Bitcoin.

It seems highly improbable to me that they would build for their clients anything that would be related to the monetary functions of Bitcoin. That's not what "building on top of Bitcoin" means. Applications do not correct or improve features of the protocol they run on. They model it to their need.

Also, remember that we are dealing with open source here.

[brg444]

I thought they made it pretty clear, I understood it like this: we are a blockchain technology company, we promise to make technology to keep your BTC save we won't inflate the 21M cap but we will extract and leverage the value kept in the blockchain, and for the miners, don't worry about the diminishing bitcoin block reward we've got something special for you, infinite fees and Merged Mining.

 

was that supposed to be funny.

here is Blockstream's activity description from the company's incorporation filling :

Développeur cryptographique qui assure des infrastructures sécuritaires qui numérisent en toute sécurité les marchés, les actifs et l'avenir de l'égalité des possibilités économiques.

Roughly translated :

Cryptography developers building secure infrastructures that digitize markets, assets and the future of egalitarian economic alternatives/possibilities

btw if anyone is curious they incorporated back in February

[Adrian-x]

Adrian at this point it is clear you don't know what you are talking about, you last several replies have demonstrated no understanding of the topic or of bitcoin.

  mining profitably since march 2011, immersed in it ever since, its been the major source of income no understanding is a little extreme.

Sidechains ARE bitcoin, there is little need for features in a sidechains to be in the main chain also (although very popular ones can be moved).

You must not be a programmer, the main chain is a parent class and a side chain is a child class. This is the right way to look at it.

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason. 

[rocks]

I thought they made it pretty clear, I understood it like this: we are a blockchain technology company, we promise to make technology to keep your BTC save we won't inflate the 21M cap but we will extract and leverage the value kept in the blockchain, and for the miners, don't worry about the diminishing bitcoin block reward we've got something special for you, infinite fees and Merged Mining.

 

was that supposed to be funny.

here is Blockstream's activity description from the company's incorporation filling :

Développeur cryptographique qui assure des infrastructures sécuritaires qui numérisent en toute sécurité les marchés, les actifs et l'avenir de l'égalité des possibilités économiques.

Roughly translated :

Cryptography developers building secure infrastructures that digitize markets, assets the future of egalitarian economic alternatives/possibilities

Adrian's reply was absurd, simply absurd. Its like asking  the CEO of Bitcoin to explain their incentive structure....

[Adrian-x]

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!

that's not economically practical, make a futures trade on some basket of SC's and 51% attack Bitcoin that economically incentive.

Hmm no. Bitcoin is the most secure chain. There is no more economic incentive to attack it with sidechains than there is without.

Hmm Why? I Get 70% income from SC I get 30% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 30% of my income.

as block rewards diminish over time i could Get 95% income from SC I get 5% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 5% of my income.

the intensives that prevent a 51% attack today are diminished as SC take value out of the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

[brg444]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

[Adrian-x]

Their customers will attempt to build moats by creating improvements in sidechains, and those moats would be threatened by having that capability in Bitcoin.

If their revenue comes from having customers, they have an incentive to take actions that benefit their customers, such as using their influence to delay or block progress in Bitcoin.

It seems highly improbable to me that they would build for their clients anything that would be related to the monetary functions of Bitcoin. That's not what "building on top of Bitcoin" means. Applications do not correct or improve features of the protocol they run on. They model it to their need.

Also, remember that we are dealing with open source here.

 they claim to have customers lined up with many orders of magnitude more liquidity than exists in Bitcoin today.

[brg444]

Hmm Why? I Get 70% income from SC I get 30% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 30% of my income.

as block rewards diminish over time i could Get 95% income from SC I get 5% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 5% of my income.

the intensives that prevent a 51% attack today are diminished as SC take value out of the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

Only lose 30%  

Are you serious? Do you really believe what you are saying? That someone, anyone, would intentionally CUT its own revenue!?

Do you realise the implications of such a "collusion" for the entire ecosystem?

I have no words

[Adrian-x]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

read the post above the referenced one here you've admitted probability to every scenario that take results in miners MM SC, if there was no MM SC there would be 100 pagers less to read.

[Adrian-x]

Hmm Why? I Get 70% income from SC I get 30% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 30% of my income.

as block rewards diminish over time i could Get 95% income from SC I get 5% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 5% of my income.

the intensives that prevent a 51% attack today are diminished as SC take value out of the Bitcoin Blockchain.  

Only lose 30%  

Are you serious? Do you really believe what you are saying? That someone, anyone, would intentionally CUT its own revenue!?

Do you realise the implications of such a "collusion" for the entire ecosystem?

I have no words

oh btw I a had a put on a handfull of SC coins, you thought i lost 30% of my mining income but my overall income is up 40%.  

why do you keep ignoring this?
as block rewards diminish over time i could Get 95% income from SC I get 5% form MM BTC - if I collude with other pools to use 100% of my mining power to attack Bitcoin, I only lose 5% of my income.
the intensives that prevent a 51% attack today are diminished as SC take value out of the Bitcoin Blockchain.

[brg444]

they claim to have customers lined up with many orders of magnitude more liquidity than exists in Bitcoin today.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Is this another incarnation of your famously stupid GOVcoin scenario?

Tragic I say... Your only see the paranoiac, conspiracy scenario because of your blinders.

Here is the glass half full scenario :

Their big shot customers want to build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin using sidechains supported by the BTC unit