Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.

yep

[1714169851]

1714169851

[1714169851]

1714169851

[1714169851]

1714169851

[1714169851]

1714169851

[brg444]

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

[notme]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

[notme]

Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.

yep

For instance, a hard forking change to increase block size.

[cypherdoc]

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

but he's a CS from Oxford.  here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete.  maybe he didn't mean it but still:

In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's.  this is the last i'll say on this. 

[cypherdoc]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

who is against increasing block size and why? 

[brg444]

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

but he's a CS from Oxford.  here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete.  maybe he didn't mean it but still:

In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's.  this is the last i'll say on this. 

Erroneous no. Incomplete, yes indeed.

[notme]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

who is against increasing block size and why? 

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)
2. it increases the required resources for all miners
3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space
4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer
5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit.  It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)

[cypherdoc]

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

but he's a CS from Oxford.  here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete.  maybe he didn't mean it but still:

In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's.  this is the last i'll say on this. 

Erroneous no. Incomplete, yes indeed.

actually, you're right.

[brg444]

Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin

[cypherdoc]

Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin

but Linux is an OS.

the question is, does Bitcoin as Money need, require, or want a Redhat of Bitcoin?

[cypherdoc]

1. it is unnecessary (there are other ways to solve scalability that do not involve a hard fork)

but the whole pt of SC's is to bring the innovation back onto MC which then will require a hard fork anyway

2. it increases the required resources for all miners

but i thought brg444 said ALL miners would end up MM'ing SC's?

3. it reduces the value of transaction fees by increasing the supply of block space

maybe, maybe not if tx #'s grow significantly

4. any hardcoded limit will just be hit again and any algorithmic limit has a lot of questions about proper incentives to answer

true

5. there is no genuine proposal for how to adjust the limit (Gavin's proposal merely addresses the issues with block transmission latency that are a prerequisite to raising the limit.  It should probably be done even if we leave the limit since it is a soft-fork change and currently miners who fill blocks to the limit are putting themselves at a disadvantage over empty blocks that propagate quicker)

why didn't the 0 tx block Mystery Miner take over a coupla yrs ago?

[Odalv]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

[cypherdoc]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

[Odalv]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.

[brg444]

Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

It is quite obvious what the company does. I know I'm parrotting this notion but they're quite obviously the Redhat of Bitcoin

but Linux is an OS.

the question is, does Bitcoin as Money need, require, or want a Redhat of Bitcoin?

Of course, Bitcoin is a protocol for decentralization of value transfer. Blockstream, with sidechains, can build decentralized applications and processes on top of the protocol.

[chriswilmer]

I think the 10,000 tps is a "burst" capacity... the usual tps is closer to 1000. I think in the case of Bitcoin, if it could handle 1000 tps on a daily basis, then in "burst" modes people would just experience confirmation times that were 5-10 times longer (an hour or two)... which isn't the end of the world (provided the burst only lasted a few hours/days, which I assume is the case).

[cypherdoc]

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.

where does he get this?:

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

[Odalv]

I think the 10,000 tps is a "burst" capacity... the usual tps is closer to 1000. I think in the case of Bitcoin, if it could handle 1000 tps on a daily basis, then in "burst" modes people would just experience confirmation times that were 5-10 times longer (an hour or two)... which isn't the end of the world (provided the burst only lasted a few hours/days, which I assume is the case).

SO if we divide numbers by 10.

14 GB / day
5 TB / year

Visa 5 secs and  Bitcoin 5 hours

[tvbcof]

re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

FYI

Visa can process 10,000 tps and bitcoin 7 tps  today. => bitcoin need  more than 1,000 times bigger block today just for Visa transcations =>  1 GB every 10 min/s

it is 144 GB every day
and 52 TB first year ( and growing exponentially )

why are Gavin's calcs so different?  when is he going to comment on SC's?

I do not know. It is only simple multiplication. Every who is able to use calculator can calculate.

Naught, naughty...doing math oneself!

You must be one of those old-timers who pre-date the common-core curriculum.  Modern people understand from their early education (drawing out a bunch of little circles and stuff) that even simple arithmetic becomes nearly impossible beyond about 4 digits and only Einstein is qualified to do it and come up with a valid result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJ4nbqx8CY

The new “Connected Math” teaches our children in “Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning,…” that “…through discussing the problems and their solutions, the students are learning to reason about the mathematics. They learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” So, if a dozen “experts” say that “2 + 2 = 19,” then that’s the new “truth” according to “Connected Math.”

Children are being made mathematically illiterate on purpose!

Above from: http://www.and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.com/blog/all-about-sustainable-development-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/