Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

spin-offs is inflationary (you have N x amount)  but SC is not inflationary b/c you CAN use BTC only in 1 chain at the same time.

Hmmm....
Unless a side chain reorganizes after the contest period.  If there are enough different SC that are MM, this is very possible.
Does a chain re-org cause SPV linked chains to re-org too?
I'd assume not in most any case, though it should invalidate the SPV for the re-org'd TXs, yes?

I could see a possible workaround on this if somehow the contest period were relative to the difficulty of each chain, but not sure how that would work in practice as that would be a flexible metric within the relevant period.  There could still be a way to game it.

[cbeast]

Sidechains, One Coin To Rule Them All

http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/11/sidechains-one-coin-to-rule-them-all.html

A very good case against the viability of Side Chains and unveiling ideological ulterior motives that undermine the fundamental incentives of Bitcoin.

Sidechains bad?

Only in their execution. I still think their is a reasonable compromise that enhances Bitcoin, like a remora to a shark.

Many people are skeptical. They remind us of altcoins I guess. But if it is a decentralized way to achieve micropayments, for example, seems legit enough

Of course, but the method Blockstream is proposing is too destructive. It's like ebola.

[cypherdoc]

Sidechains, One Coin To Rule Them All

http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/11/sidechains-one-coin-to-rule-them-all.html

A very good case against the viability of Side Chains and unveiling ideological ulterior motives that undermine the fundamental incentives of Bitcoin.

Sidechains bad?

Only in their execution. I still think their is a reasonable compromise that enhances Bitcoin, like a remora to a shark.

Many people are skeptical. They remind us of altcoins I guess. But if it is a decentralized way to achieve micropayments, for example, seems legit enough

read more carefully.

his pt is that a SC for micropmts would increase data demands on full nodes thus increasing centralization and thus exposure to gvt intervention and surveillance.  pretty devastating article against SC's:

Secondly we have the problem of block chain scaling.  If everything is going to be on ONE block chain, how will we store all this information in every p2p node?  So this contributes to the problem of an ongoing theme in the Bitcion world, that of Centralization.  This theme has many sub-motifs such as mass surveillance, monetary dominance, market rigging, and other factors to which average users are averse.  It seems this theme is rather virulent and some forces have a lot invested in maintaining programs to progress this goal and hide their agenda from the public.  The problem of moving value between different chain types was already solved by Cryptocoin exchanges, however Sidechains privileges a new group- the group that traces and tracks coin usage ie. surveillance interests.  In an cryptocoin exchange scenario, ownership qualities are destroyed the moment coins enter into an exchange.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Sidechains, One Coin To Rule Them All

http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/11/sidechains-one-coin-to-rule-them-all.html

A very good case against the viability of Side Chains and unveiling ideological ulterior motives that undermine the fundamental incentives of Bitcoin.

Sidechains bad?

Only in their execution. I still think their is a reasonable compromise that enhances Bitcoin, like a remora to a shark.

Many people are skeptical. They remind us of altcoins I guess. But if it is a decentralized way to achieve micropayments, for example, seems legit enough

Of course, but the method Blockstream is proposing is too destructive. It's like ebola.

I haven't read the whitepaper yet  

[cbeast]

Another possible compromise: make Side Chains an extension of Colored Coins. Instead of moving large blocks of bitcoins into the Side Chain, use the counterparty leverage of Colored Coins as the Side Chain peg. They won't be pegged to bitcoins, but they will add a layer to colored coins.

[cbeast]

Sidechains, One Coin To Rule Them All

http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/11/sidechains-one-coin-to-rule-them-all.html

Come on. You aren't really referencing greaseball bluemeanies blog as a meaningful source of information are you? I would expect better around here.

Blogs are about the only way to avoid trolls nowadays.

[cbeast]

Sidechains, One Coin To Rule Them All

http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/11/sidechains-one-coin-to-rule-them-all.html

Come on. You aren't really referencing greaseball bluemeanies blog as a meaningful source of information are you? I would expect better around here.

Blogs are about the only way to avoid trolls nowadays.

And when the blogger is the troll?

He doesn't eat up a bunch of thread space before he is ignored.

[cypherdoc]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2my5xz/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_core_development_less/cm8w90y

[cbeast]

Instead of Blockstream, imagine if it was Google. Would you feel the same? Remember, the miners aren't going to let anyone just run roughshod over the protocol and scare away their customers. Perhaps if this puny little 21M enterprise shows any initiative to actually innovate anything rather than pump and dump like every other shitcoin, maybe Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc. will jump in and do something really useful. IOW, although I agree with you in principle, I think you are overreacting over this group. In fact, it's about time there was a whole lot more new blood researching, testing, and hacking Bitcoin's future.

[cypherdoc]

OR they could reorganize as a non profit.

[cypherdoc]

Adrian may a great point the other day.

Why haven't all those all star investors in Blockstream invested in BTC, the currency unit, as opposed to a for profit company that stands to make $Billions turning Bitcoin as Money into a WoW trading platform game?

You might argue that they have but i seriously doubt it given the price action and the vocalized uneasiness with Bitcoin as Money that we've already heard from a number of CEO  types over time.  Plus, we know Bitcoin as Money would seriously disrupt alot of these guys empires if it gains a foothold in the currency wars.

[cypherdoc]

Adrian may a great point the other day.

Why haven't all those all star investors in Blockstream invested in BTC, the currency unit, as opposed to a for profit company that stands to make $Billions turning Bitcoin as Money into a WoW trading platform game?

You might argue that they have but i seriously doubt it given the price action and the vocalized uneasiness with Bitcoin as Money that we've already heard from a number of CEO  types over time.  Plus, we know Bitcoin as Money would seriously disrupt alot of these guys empires if it gains a foothold in the currency wars.

If you don't think they are doing both you are crazy but they are doing so in small increments 1-5% of their net wealth just in the coin is more than enough, the other investments is about making USD off the transactions and builds up the value of the nest egg bitcoins.

This was a great thread to follow everyday but honestly you have just went of the deep end on SC and everything in the last few weeks, this was one of the last threads I was following here and now have clicked unwatch.

I'm not worried.

I'm sure you'll be back just like all the others who say they're leaving.

[NewLiberty]

The side chain concept is meritorious in that it generates the innovation of a sort of reversible Proof-of-Burn for new coin emission.
Counterparty used Proof of Burn in their launch, and it seemed the right thing to do at the time, and I still like it, and it worked out.

The notion of "pegging" I think is damaging to the Side Chain effort.  Currency pegs always fail. (Argentina, Greece, China, etc)  They are using a discredited term for something novel that just might not ever fail in some implementations.  It is better than a peg and calling it a peg (or even a 2wp) is too faint of a descriptor.  I'd rather they use a newer more distinguishable term (even "crypto-pegging" would be better).

There are all sorts of problems that this can cause, and all sorts of problems that it can solve.  This thread has been one of the best places to sort through those.  The occasional wacky assertions are also useful.  It helps us realize that we are out here on the edge between what people know and what people don't yet know.

I am not at all certain of what the future of these will be, but this thread does provide some vistas of the possibilities.

[cypherdoc]

The side chain concept is meritorious in that it generates the innovation of a sort of reversible Proof-of-Burn for new coin emission.
Counterparty used Proof of Burn in their launch, and it seemed the right thing to do at the time, and I still like it, and it worked out.

The notion of "pegging" I think is damaging to the Side Chain effort.  Currency pegs always fail. (Argentina, Greece, China, etc)  They are using a discredited term for something novel that just might not ever fail in some implementations.  It is better than a peg and calling it a peg (or even a 2wp) is too faint of a descriptor.  I'd rather they use a newer more distinguishable term (even "crypto-pegging" would be better).

There are all sorts of problems that this can cause, and all sorts of problems that it can solve.  This thread has been one of the best places to sort through those.  The occasional wacky assertions are also useful.  It helps us realize that we are out here on the edge between what people know and what people don't yet know.

I am not at all certain of what the future of these will be, but this thread does provide some vistas of the possibilities.

some ppl think i have an agenda here.  that's simply not true.

for evidence, look at the title of this thread and its lifetime.  the title distills in 4 words my view of Bitcoin and my vision of how it should relate to the World.  i've poured everything i have into it so it should be no surprise where i stand.

[cbeast]

OR they could reorganize as a non profit.

A business venture that fails is a non-profit. They have zero chance of changing Bitcoin into a decentralized trading platform for speculative tokens even if regulators allow them a double standard against Bitcoin because competition. If they can do it, then a bigger fish will eat their lunch. One after the other they try and they fail to knock Bitcoin off the hill. Hopefull they will at least allow some devs to learn enough to defect and become Bitcoin core devs. Groupthink isn't for everybody. Blockstream does indeed seem to have some pretty cultish notions.

[cypherdoc]

Blockstream does indeed seem to have some pretty cultish notions.

geezuz krist.  have you ever seen gmax and lukejr behave in certain situations?  they're ridiculous.  techo-commies as JR says.

[NewLiberty]

OR they could reorganize as a non profit.

A business venture that fails is a non-profit. They have zero chance of changing Bitcoin into a decentralized trading platform for speculative tokens even if regulators allow them a double standard against Bitcoin because competition. If they can do it, then a bigger fish will eat their lunch. One after the other they try and they fail to knock Bitcoin off the hill. Hopefull they will at least allow some devs to learn enough to defect and become Bitcoin core devs. Groupthink isn't for everybody. Blockstream does indeed seem to have some pretty cultish notions.

There are some cultists to be sure.  The innovation though, is a positive thing... if it is implemented well and if it can avoid some of the many issues we have surfaced here.  If they are ignored, it could be disastrous.  The cultists and cheerleaders bug me only a little, Bitcoin has no shortage of these.

Sociologically, these cultists also present a risk.  They represent a strategy that is ill-advised in this technology space.  This is why I have recommended here that they moderate their presentation of only the opportunities and not also the risks.

It may be educational to look at some other historical uses of that method of marketing.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Blockstream has't yet been shown to have engaged in any impropriety arising from the conflicted interests.  How the conflict is managed will be telling.  I like the folks involved, and wish them every success with this.  I have confidence that they will find the right way to handle it.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.

[Adrian-x]

Adrian may a great point the other day.

Why haven't all those all star investors in Blockstream invested in BTC, the currency unit, as opposed to a for profit company that stands to make $Billions turning Bitcoin as Money into a WoW trading platform game?

You might argue that they have but i seriously doubt it given the price action and the vocalized uneasiness with Bitcoin as Money that we've already heard from a number of CEO  types over time.  Plus, we know Bitcoin as Money would seriously disrupt alot of these guys empires if it gains a foothold in the currency wars.

Not to belittle the point but I think WoW trading platform is a little bit of a hyperbole.

The reversible proof of burn is an apt description. The problem is if SC add any value why reverse, and if some other form of SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin, Bitcoin's utility will be limited to that allocation if it absorbed enough of it. The result would prevent Bitcoin from reaching it's full potential.

All businesses seek to find a win win value proposition so they can extract a voluntary tax, seeking regulatory assistance to give one a competitive advantage is an attempt at preventing competition ultimately the goal of the least create is an attempt at getting a monopoly.

With Bitcoin we have for the first time in history a set of immutable laws that are enforced by violently cooperation.

BlockStream are the first company to come along and propose a change to the laws that govern the system.

They don't have a business plan yet they have been given over $20,000,000 to implement a change to the Bitcoin protocol

They are the first business to want to extract wealth from the system without a win win proposition.

Every amazing idea I've heard is a projection of a win win from the community. There is no free lunch in nature just entropy and efficiency, we are on the precipice of an extinction event with Bitcoin, we only need switch out the masters of money for this to happen. SC however impressive and innovative are a threat to the $1,000,000 Bitcoin.

With SC the first amazing idea to eat up the $5B market cap wins.

[justusranvier]

Blockstream has't yet been shown to have engaged in any impropriety arising from the conflicted interests.  How the conflict is managed will be telling.  I like the folks involved, and wish them every success with this.  I have confidence that they will find the right way to handle it.

So far the manner in which they are handling it is not encouraging.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2mqlcy/why_are_people_so_afraid_of_sidechains/cm6zg25

[Adrian-x]

Something interesting is happening, for the first time since July 2011 Bitcoin Difficulty is trending negative. (it's a little soon as the feed cost - energy is still well below the market price)