Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

[1714144078]

1714144078

[1714144078]

1714144078

[1714144078]

1714144078

[1714144078]

1714144078

[solex]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

[Adrian-x]

Is there any ETA for the first attempt to plug a sidechain?

The first plug for a SideChain happened on day 2 after Blocksteeam published the paper.

What's the ETA to inject the protocol change is the question?

[cypherdoc]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

keep you eyes on the far right column:

[cypherdoc]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

keep you eyes on the far right column:

from Reddit comments.  think nom, nom, nom:

[–]Gayspy 1 point 14 minutes ago

Yeah! You can exchange Bitcoin to euros and vice versa in Finland without paying 24% extra for the government in taxes each time you do! Who would have thought.

[Adrian-x]

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

Miners must mine where ever the value is,  it's not about where they get there revenue it's about how they get there Bitcoin, that is what protects the Bitcoin network.

SC's alow new mining incentives off the Bitcoin blockchain, transaction fees are inconsequential at the moment,  but are intended to reduce to the marginal cost to secure the network in time.  

Is this scenario possible, where miners by charging higher fees on the Bitcoin Blockchain, encourage users to use a better SideChaine for faster more cost effective transactions?

When that is 100% impossible my concerns will be put to rest. And Kevin Dowd can eat humble pie.

[brg444]

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.

Sidechains do not generate more demand for transactions, they simply accomodate those transactions so that they can be held on-chain. It appears you suggest it is better for transactions to occur off-chain? That miners incentive should be limited to only what can be accomodated on the mainchain?

What ratio do you propose should be held on/off so as to not allow miners to "insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop".

[brg444]

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

Miners must mine where ever the value is,  it's not about where they get there revenue it's about how they get there Bitcoin, that is what protects the Bitcoin network.

SC's alow new mining incentives off the Bitcoin blockchain, transaction fees are inconsequential at the moment,  but are intended to reduce to the marginal cost to secure the network in time.  

Is this scenario possible, where miners by charging higher fees on the Bitcoin Blockchain, encourage users to use a better SideChaine for faster more cost effective transactions?

When that is 100% impossible my concerns will be put to rest. And Kevin Dowd can eat humble pie.

What incentive is there for the miners to encourage users to use a different chain for transactions? Serious question.

[Adrian-x]

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.

Sidechains do not generate more demand for transactions, they simply accomodate those transactions so that they can be held on-chain. It appears you suggest it is better for transactions to occur off-chain? That miners incentive should be limited to only what can be accomodated on the mainchain?

What ratio do you propose should be held on/off so as to not allow miners to "insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop".

I think 100% of Bitcoin exchanges should happened on a single Bitcoin ledger. But in reality I don't know.

If you prefer you can think of federated SC's as as on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there is no limit for those.

[brg444]

Is there any ETA for the first attempt to plug a sidechain?

Here is some non-official roadmap pulled from an interview with Coindesk

"There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.

...

As for what that means in the short term, Back and Hill were less clear. Back indicated that sidechains are up and running on an internal test network and that Blockstream is currently in talks with an undisclosed number of potential pilot customers.

Currently, Blockstream is selecting co-development partners who are provided with early access to some of the development. This allows them to collaborate on making sure that the use cases – and the technology that supports them – accomplish their goals, Hill said.

...

"Right now that progress is deploying and interacting with the community, showcasing how sidechains and bitcoin and this ecosystem can evolve," he said. "We have some strategic objectives that we think are important that are not being done about the ecosystem."

Blockstream, Hill added, hopes to publicize potential use cases of its technology, but this is likely to take some time. He went on to estimate that the sidechains project would likely be open to the general public during the first half of 2015.

[Adrian-x]

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

Miners must mine where ever the value is,  it's not about where they get there revenue it's about how they get there Bitcoin, that is what protects the Bitcoin network.

SC's alow new mining incentives off the Bitcoin blockchain, transaction fees are inconsequential at the moment,  but are intended to reduce to the marginal cost to secure the network in time.  

Is this scenario possible, where miners by charging higher fees on the Bitcoin Blockchain, encourage users to use a better SideChaine for faster more cost effective transactions?

When that is 100% impossible my concerns will be put to rest. And Kevin Dowd can eat humble pie.

What incentive is there for the miners to encourage users to use a different chain for transactions? Serious question.

If a SideChain can do more tps, that would be an incentive.

[justusranvier]

If a SideChain can do more tps, that would be an incentive.

The only reason the main chain can't do as many tps as a side chain is because there's an artificial production quota written into the protocol.

[brg444]

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.

Sidechains do not generate more demand for transactions, they simply accomodate those transactions so that they can be held on-chain. It appears you suggest it is better for transactions to occur off-chain? That miners incentive should be limited to only what can be accomodated on the mainchain?

What ratio do you propose should be held on/off so as to not allow miners to "insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop".

I think 100% of Bitcoin exchanges should happened on a single Bitcoin ledger. But in reality I don't know.

If you prefer you can think of federated SC's as as on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there is no limit for those.

As ZB has pointed out, the exchanges do happen on the same, single Bitcoin ledger. That ledger is merely fragmented into different chains. The value is distributed on different chains but is all, in theory, compounded into the same network/ledger.

The problem I'd like for you to address re: federated SC's is they have the same consequences of changing the economic incentives for miners. Yes that change does not happen on the protocol level but it is IMO at least equally concerning. In that scenario, the incentives are not adopting a different model but are effectively "hijacked" by the federation/oracles/OT. This has the potential to considerably decrease the miners incentive to protect the network, especially compounded with the block subsidy drop.

If we expect miners to depend on transactions fees in the future then should we not make sure these transactions are not driven away to schemes that are out of their reach?

[Odalv]

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.

amen

cypherdoc, my greedy brother, did you manage to steal more wealth from working class ?

[NewLiberty]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit.

Solidarity with Bitcoin excellence >> solidarity with any individual or proposal.

It is our job to get the proposal up to acceptability rather than to support a substandard proposal.

[Adrian-x]

If a SideChain can do more tps, that would be an incentive.

The only reason the main chain can't do as many tps as a side chain is because there's an artificial production quota written into the protocol.

As I have come to understand this is the a key issue and is the highest priority (as a temporary solution it can I presume be adjusted as it is just an preset value.)

[sickpig]

Scalability as in block size limit.  
Transaction fees.
The other issues are non issues in relation to the above. (I'd feel progress is happening if we just altered 2 lines of code over the next 3 years while we debated the issue)

http://www.freebanking.org/2014/11/18/bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust/ read this.

Where Kevin Dowd's analysis falls short is he doesn't account for the economics in the block halving. The block halving wrestles power away from miners.

I've outlined how miners in cooperation with the proposed change to the protocol can avoid the declining revenue in the halving.

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.

let me see if I understand you correctly: you're saying that introducing spvp at the protocol level will block the inevitable erosion of miners power, am I correct?

In any case I've to thank you b/c I've never thought of block halving as a way to reduce miners influence on the btc env.
It makes sense and if we take into consideration that after a certain threshold concentration of mining power is pernicious
to the system we should appreciate the satoshi's genius even more.

The usual way of "reading" block halving is a method to control inflation in the system, the one you just make me
discovered  is less evident but not less important.

One last thing about the link you share above. I've just gave it a quick glance but I'm not sure that this part 100% true:

However, the mining industry is characterized by large economies of scale. In fact, these economies of scale are so large that the industry is a natural monopoly.

Why, let say, discus fish rather than ghash.io should became a monopoly if being such a thing will mean getting a
btc/fiat ratio equal to 0?

[justusranvier]

I presume be adjusted as it is just an preset value.

Yes.... and no.

Increasing this limit requires the entire network to upgrade.

[justusranvier]

However, the mining industry is characterized by large economies of scale. In fact, these economies of scale are so large that the industry is a natural monopoly.

Why, let say, discus fish rather than ghash.io should became a monopoly if being such a thing will mean getting a
btc/fiat ratio equal to 0?

There's no such thing as natural monopoly. It's always been a fallacy:

http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

[NewLiberty]

I presume be adjusted as it is just an preset value.

Yes.... and no.

Increasing this limit requires the entire network to upgrade.

It is the top issue on the Hard-Fork-wishlist.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist