Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability

[fran2k]

Clearly a simple but good move forwards to massive bitcoin adoption, hehe.

[1714960016]

1714960016

[1714960016]

1714960016

[1714960016]

1714960016

[1714960016]

1714960016

[1714960016]

1714960016

[The00Dustin]

pretty sure VISA keeps a ledger

Visa does not actually keep a ledger. If you wanted to use a Bitcoin analogy, you would say that Visa acts as a node (that does not keep a mempool of unspent inputs) and will only "accept" a transaction if the issuing bank confirms there is enough unspent inputs (credit line available).

Nice of you to correct me, and maybe ledger isn't the right word at all considering that most of their transactions are credit based, but do you really expect me to believe that Visa contacts JP Morgan Chase to verify credit hurdreds of thousands of times per day?  I'm simply saying that Visa is keeping track of a lot of data in order to process all those transactions.  It may be pruned regularly since the banks have to provide statements and whatnot, but some transactions take a few days to clear, so they certainly have to track it that whole time.  Regardless, none that changes the fact that they process and track a lot of data.  Moreover, my point that storage is the cheapest part of a miner's arsenal still stands, and as long as miners are paying the kind of money they currently pay for ASICs, storage is not going to concern them.  On the other hand, income obviously will, and IMO, when the block reward halvings get relevant, more transactions are more likely to keep bitcoin secure and competitive than higher fees per transaction and users that go to sidechains to avoid paying the fees (and that's even assuming someone as genius as Satoshi comes up with a good trust-free way to make sidechains serve this purpose instead of all the purposes sidechains were really meant to serve when the concpet came about).

[LeMiner]

Actually combining blockchain pruning (i.e, the "main" blockchain only storing UNSPEND addresses), and some of the new emerging technologies like ed25519 that even on an old 2010 CPU we're already capable of 80,000 verifications per second. Seeing how we have a HUGE HUGE way to go before we actually reaching that amount of transactions per second, when we actually do reach it would likely be way post 2020, where we will have even faster hardware and likely better algorithms, which should technically be able to sustain the guidelines I mentioned.

Not to mention that most people would be running light clients anyway around that time, just as described in satoshi's original paper.

In the end there is no reason not to have everything running on the main blockchain since technological difficulties can be overcome.

I've heard all this kind of things ad-nauseam for the 3+ years that I've been following things.  Simultaneously I've seen both the hardware and network improvements which have been made realistically available over that time period, and also the struggles Bitcoin has had just to make the original 7 TPS number kinda work.  Many of them were not pretty.  Some of these rosy predictions about how technology will swoop in to save the day (and let us go from 7 TPS to 200,000 TPS which is enthusiastic even for your type) would be more convincing if there were a few more signs of it actually occurring.

One of the main reasons these things haven't been implemented before is that Bitcoin as a whole was still in a massive alpha stage, having more transactions per second simply wasn't needed up until now. And now especially so that we can continue to grow.

Commercial profit driven companies attempting centralized solutions (like blockstream) to problems can be solved with decentralized and open solutions are honestly very terrifying, and I hope that technological advances on Bitcoin deploy fast enough to prevent any side-chaining or centralized solution having to take its place so we can continue this open concept revolution for everyone to continue spreading. 

What is also important is sidechains are useless if you want to receive your remainder of tokens back in bitcoins. All this will do is switch value away from an open decentralized solution to a closed centralized "solution".

[TonyT]

I think raising the fees for scalability would be too much. For a fee of 0.02, imagine if 1 Bitcoin was worth $1000. That would result in a fee of $20 for any transaction, regardless of how much is being sent! That's not very ideal. I think what can be done is to support a larger number transactions per block. More transactions processed = more fees collected.

But this won't solve the problem over time.  See the response by kkaskal in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668704.0

And the graphic at URL in this thread:

<img class="userimg" src="https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMCWO0tH.png&amp;t=545&amp;c=8_MsRYuvimAWfQ" alt="" border="0"></img>

Note block reward is decreasing over time, a well known problem since the number of bitcoins is fixed and it gets progressively harder to mine bitcoins over time, all things being equal.

[LeMiner]

I think raising the fees for scalability would be too much. For a fee of 0.02, imagine if 1 Bitcoin was worth $1000. That would result in a fee of $20 for any transaction, regardless of how much is being sent! That's not very ideal. I think what can be done is to support a larger number transactions per block. More transactions processed = more fees collected.

But this won't solve the problem over time.  See the response by kkaskal in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668704.0

And the graphic at URL in this thread:

<img class="userimg" src="https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMCWO0tH.png&amp;t=545&amp;c=8_MsRYuvimAWfQ" alt="" border="0"></img>

Note block reward is decreasing over time, a well known problem since the number of bitcoins is fixed and it gets progressively harder to mine bitcoins over time, all things being equal.

I made a fairly reasonable calculation on future fee costs that shows it actually is sustainable.

[tvbcof]

A handful of large organizations probably could run Bitcoin at these rates but realistically that's about it, and at that point they may as well do away with the blockchain itself and make it a real-time system like VISA.  That's why clued in folks like the blockstrream guys are looking around for a solution which will let Bitcoin scale to these levels without abandoning the very desirable aspects of the solution that it has today.

Pretty sure satoshi talked about light clients for the masses.  Also pretty sure VISA keeps a ledger.  Are you suggesting that "clued in guys" have insider knowledge that storage technology isn't going to continue to grow and get cheaper?  Do you also think "clued in guys" are writing solutions that pay people to mine things other than bitcoin are doing so completely philanthropically and not out to make a buck?  Is there any real evidence that sidechains aren't just going to be the new altcoin?

Well, the 'clued in guys' who associated themselves under 'blockstream' just happen to be among the most productive and thoughtful of the Bitcoin developers and maintainers.  I've personally paid pretty close attention off-and-on for some time now since I have a fair bit riding on Bitcoin (and have not yet diversified into any alts.)  I've seen Maxwell be uniformally out in front when it comes to trying to protect the goals of the Bitcoin project which are important to me (openness, decentralization, etc.)  When I was watching the deltas it was pretty clear to me that ~sipa was what we in the biz would call the 'principle architect' of the Bitcoin.  Adding bluematt, Back, Frie-whatever, etc into the mix makes this group clearly the tip of the codebase spear in my opinion.

It's a fair bet that some of these old timers have giant hoards of Bitcoin.  By your own logic it makes little sense that they have anything but a powerful financial incentive to foster the health of Bitcoin itself.  Since I personally believe that sidechains are by far the best hope of doing this (and benefit the world's masses in the process) I am not at all surprised and am very heartened that they have organized to achieve this effort.

As far as I'm concerned Hearn, who absolutely _has_ made some very valuable contributions to Bitcoin, has always been in direct opposition to many of the aspects of Bitcoin that appealed to me.  To his credit he has been relatively open about these things (debatable on some of them though.)  Discriminating against arbitrary users via mining consolidation, consolidation of blockchain maint to a small number of large entities, Red-listing, mainstream passport use for individual identities, etc.  I've developed a sense that Hearn has Andresen's ear in a fairly big way and significantly through the medium of the Bitcoin Foundation which also seems to align with Hearn's direction for Bitcoin.  When Gavin went to the Council on Foreign Relations (some of the most wealthy and influential people in the world) and refused to either commit to openness or even debrief on the conversations he may have had, this further damaged whatever credibility he had (to me.)

When Gavin champion an exponential growth rate for Bitcoin the first thing I thought was 'Ya, that figures.'

ETA: Considering the cost of ASIC mining equipment, storage technology would actually have to start shrinking and increasing in cost to the point that individuals couldn't afford computers before it would begin to matter to miners.

Aside from the fact that 'that don't make no kinda sense', nobody has ever really considered storage capacity (indicated by your use of the term 'shrinking') to be a factor in much of anything.  At worst one might need to physically deliver media in order to get a node operational, but that's doable.  Access to the local data for 'old school' full verification modes of operation is a somewhat different matter, but it's likely to be a solvable problem.  Both of these assume some simbalance of reasonable system growth at least.  If TPS limits were lifted completely all bets are off, but that's not what Gavin is suggesting here (for the next decade or so at least.)

[LeMiner]

A handful of large organizations probably could run Bitcoin at these rates but realistically that's about it, and at that point they may as well do away with the blockchain itself and make it a real-time system like VISA.  That's why clued in folks like the blockstrream guys are looking around for a solution which will let Bitcoin scale to these levels without abandoning the very desirable aspects of the solution that it has today.

Pretty sure satoshi talked about light clients for the masses.  Also pretty sure VISA keeps a ledger.  Are you suggesting that "clued in guys" have insider knowledge that storage technology isn't going to continue to grow and get cheaper?  Do you also think "clued in guys" are writing solutions that pay people to mine things other than bitcoin are doing so completely philanthropically and not out to make a buck?  Is there any real evidence that sidechains aren't just going to be the new altcoin?

Well, the 'clued in guys' who associated themselves under 'blockstream' just happen to be among the most productive and thoughtful of the Bitcoin developers and maintainers.  I've personally paid pretty close attention off-and-on for some time now since I have a fair bit riding on Bitcoin (and have not yet diversified into any alts.)  I've seen Maxwell be uniformally out in front when it comes to trying to protect the goals of the Bitcoin project which are important to me (openness, decentralization, etc.)  When I was watching the deltas it was pretty clear to me that ~sipa was what we in the biz would call the 'principle architect' of the Bitcoin.  Adding bluematt, Back, Frie-whatever, etc into the mix makes this group clearly the tip of the codebase spear in my opinion.

It's a fair bet that some of these old timers have giant hoards of Bitcoin.  By your own logic it makes little sense that they have anything but a powerful financial incentive to foster the health of Bitcoin itself.  Since I personally believe that sidechains are by far the best hope of doing this (and benefit the world's masses in the process) I am not at all surprised and am very heartened that they have organized to achieve this effort.

As far as I'm concerned Hearn, who absolutely _has_ made some very valuable contributions to Bitcoin, has always been in direct opposition to many of the aspects of Bitcoin that appealed to me.  To his credit he has been relatively open about these things (debatable on some of them though.)  Discriminating against arbitrary users via mining consolidation, consolidation of blockchain maint to a small number of large entities, Red-listing, mainstream passport use for individual identities, etc.  I've developed a sense that Hearn has Andresen's ear in a fairly big way and significantly through the medium of the Bitcoin Foundation which also seems to align with Hearn's direction for Bitcoin.  When Gavin went to the Council on Foreign Relations (some of the most wealthy and influential people in the world) and refused to either commit to openness or even debrief on the conversations he may have had, this further damaged whatever credibility he had (to me.)

When Gavin champion an exponential growth rate for Bitcoin the first thing I thought was 'Ya, that figures.'

ETA: Considering the cost of ASIC mining equipment, storage technology would actually have to start shrinking and increasing in cost to the point that individuals couldn't afford computers before it would begin to matter to miners.

Aside from the fact that 'that don't make no kinda sense', nobody has ever really considered storage capacity (indicated by your use of the term 'shrinking') to be a factor in much of anything.  At worst one might need to physically deliver media in order to get a node operational, but that's doable.  Access to the local data for 'old school' full verification modes of operation is a somewhat different matter, but it's likely to be a solvable problem.  Both of these assume some simbalance of reasonable system growth at least.  If TPS limits were lifted completely all bets are off, but that's not what Gavin is suggesting here (for the next decade or so at least.)

The only reason those developers have "gotten behind" blocksteam is because they're getting paid to do so, they have actually included a part in their contract that states if they think the company is acting maliciously they can leave at any time, probably because they can realize what is going on already. They still work on the main Bitcoin code as well.

[tvbcof]

The only reason those developers have "gotten behind" blocksteam is because they're getting paid to do so,

LOL!  OK.  And you know this with enough confidence to state it as a fact how again?

they have actually included a part in their contract that states if they think the company is acting maliciously they can leave at any time,

That's a bad thing?!?

probably because they can realize what is going on already.

If that's so then why in the fuck would they have even associated in the first place?  Work on your critical thinking skills a bit will ya?

They still work on the main Bitcoin code as well.

Thank God!

[LeMiner]

The only reason those developers have "gotten behind" blocksteam is because they're getting paid to do so,

LOL!  OK.  And you know this with enough confidence to state it as a fact how again?

they have actually included a part in their contract that states if they think the company is acting maliciously they can leave at any time,

That's a bad thing?!?

probably because they can realize what is going on already.

If that's so then why in the fuck would they have even associated in the first place?  Work on your critical thinking skills a bit will ya?

They still work on the main Bitcoin code as well.

Thank God!

I suggest you read through this: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sidechains-bitcoin-2-0-revolution-highlights-reddit-ama/

[tvbcof]

I suggest you read through this: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sidechains-bitcoin-2-0-revolution-highlights-reddit-ama/

I followed the sidechains AMA.  Nothing new in that story at all, and nothing whatsoever which would support much of what you've been saying.

I will say that I'll expect sidechains impact on alts to be one of 'separating the wheat from the chaff.'  I believe that a fair number of alts were created to address some legitimate and valid needs that the the designers felt important.  Probably a majority of alts were created as pump-n-dump scams.

Alts which were created for the right reasons probably largely lamented the fact that they could not let Bitcoin do the heavy lifting as the actual value component.  These should be absolutely delighted to switch to a sidechain implementation.

OTOH, I foresee howls of rage and despair from those alts which are pump-n-dump scams designed with the hopes of making some early adopters rich.  I suspect that a fair amount of the negativity toward sidechains is from this corner right now because I can see no other legitimate complaint against sidechains.  This from a risk perspective, economic perspective, philosophical perspective, or any other rational perspective.  At least not one that is based on any skin-deep understanding of things.  (Actually, I take that back; those desperate to destroy Bitcoin as an empowering technology for individuals will also be quite alarmed by sidechains.)

[Palmdetroit]

Better way ahead:

3rd party Service which individuals keep a btc balance on, app form for instant PoS transactions, like applepay.

Individual TX never sees the blockchain.

[The00Dustin]

As far as I'm concerned Hearn, who absolutely _has_ made some very valuable contributions to Bitcoin, has always been in direct opposition to many of the aspects of Bitcoin that appealed to me.  To his credit he has been relatively open about these things (debatable on some of them though.)  Discriminating against arbitrary users via mining consolidation, consolidation of blockchain maint to a small number of large entities, Red-listing, mainstream passport use for individual identities, etc.  I've developed a sense that Hearn has Andresen's ear in a fairly big way and significantly through the medium of the Bitcoin Foundation which also seems to align with Hearn's direction for Bitcoin.  When Gavin went to the Council on Foreign Relations (some of the most wealthy and influential people in the world) and refused to either commit to openness or even debrief on the conversations he may have had, this further damaged whatever credibility he had (to me.)

I snipped the first part of your comment because, I don't pay attention that closely and won't argue something I have no clue on.  Regarding this last comment, I've seen plenty of what Hearn wants to do and probably disagreed about as much as you have.  As such, your suggestion that he has much pull concerns me.  While I was also already somewhat concerned about TBF in general and the lack of openness with the council, for lack of a better way to put it, I don't think TBF is Google (with a motto of don't be evil and pure evil ambitions/intentions).  TBF may be stupid, but I prefer have opinions on the ideas instead of the people/groups who came up with said ideas instead of assuming the ideas match my opinions of their source.

ETA: Considering the cost of ASIC mining equipment, storage technology would actually have to start shrinking and increasing in cost to the point that individuals couldn't afford computers before it would begin to matter to miners.

Aside from the fact that 'that don't make no kinda sense', nobody has ever really considered storage capacity (indicated by your use of the term 'shrinking') to be a factor in much of anything.  At worst one might need to physically deliver media in order to get a node operational, but that's doable.  Access to the local data for 'old school' full verification modes of operation is a somewhat different matter, but it's likely to be a solvable problem.  Both of these assume some simbalance of reasonable system growth at least.  If TPS limits were lifted completely all bets are off, but that's not what Gavin is suggesting here (for the next decade or so at least.)

Here, you just said exactly what I was saying about the size of the blockchain not being important to miners, so I'll pass that off as a communication glitch.  Similar comments could be made on the size of blocks and the cost of bandwidth.  If you agree storage and bandwidth aren't problems for miners, then you have not made it clear to me at all what you think the problems with a block size increase are.

OTOH, I foresee howls of rage and despair from those alts which are pump-n-dump scams designed with the hopes of making some early adopters rich.  I suspect that a fair amount of the negativity toward sidechains is from this corner right now because I can see no other legitimate complaint against sidechains.  This from a risk perspective, economic perspective, philosophical perspective, or any other rational perspective.  At least not one that is based on any skin-deep understanding of things.  (Actually, I take that back; those desperate to destroy Bitcoin as an empowering technology for individuals will also be quite alarmed by sidechains.)

For the record, I never touched any alts other than Namecoin and Litecoin.  Namecoin was never about value, and I only dabbled in Litecoin like a hedge more than anything else, although I had little doubt that ASICs would make their way to SCRYPT as quickly as they made their way to Bitcoin (this was before ASICs, and I had no idea they would make it to either near as quickly as they did).  That having been said, as I have previously stated, when the idea of sidechains came about, it was so that non-Bitcoin functions could take advantage of the biggest most secure blockchain without bloating it with non-Bitcoin information.  To that end, I am not against sidechains, and would even say it would have made sense for Namecoin to be a sidechain if it were going to catch on and actually compete with our centralized domain name registry.  However, I have yet to see obvious any arguments that adding complication and storing Bitcoin information outside of the Bitcoin blockchain will actually solve any legitimate problems.

[LeMiner]

I suggest you read through this: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sidechains-bitcoin-2-0-revolution-highlights-reddit-ama/

I followed the sidechains AMA.  Nothing new in that story at all, and nothing whatsoever which would support much of what you've been saying.

I will say that I'll expect sidechains impact on alts to be one of 'separating the wheat from the chaff.'  I believe that a fair number of alts were created to address some legitimate and valid needs that the the designers felt important.  Probably a majority of alts were created as pump-n-dump scams.

Alts which were created for the right reasons probably largely lamented the fact that they could not let Bitcoin do the heavy lifting as the actual value component.  These should be absolutely delighted to switch to a sidechain implementation.

OTOH, I foresee howls of rage and despair from those alts which are pump-n-dump scams designed with the hopes of making some early adopters rich.  I suspect that a fair amount of the negativity toward sidechains is from this corner right now because I can see no other legitimate complaint against sidechains.  This from a risk perspective, economic perspective, philosophical perspective, or any other rational perspective.  At least not one that is based on any skin-deep understanding of things.  (Actually, I take that back; those desperate to destroy Bitcoin as an empowering technology for individuals will also be quite alarmed by sidechains.)

I believe the main reason why we're in disagreement is because I think that the focus should be aimed at solving problems on the biggest and most secure blockchain in the world (Bitcoin), rather than implementing or trying to implement sidechains so we can incorporate a lot of smaller, let's call them ways to exchange different "tokens". The fact that this is driven by a for profit organization which will actually be touching the Bitcoin codebase and that has centralization on it's agenda concerns me greatly.

Hence I'd rather see us all working in unity to solve the problems we're facing on the main chain, rather than anywhere else.

[SomethingElse]

Sidechains allow a lot of really cool functions to be added to bitcoin, without having to actually change bitcoin.  Now the real bitcoin chain doesn't have to take a risk and implement a risky code.  After a long time if a code is proven it can be added, but for now the sidechains can be extensive testnets that are locked into bitcoin but not actually bitcoin. 

Sidechains aren't necessarily an altcoin killer, though they are a pump and dump killer.  If a novel alt coin is born, it can be locked into bitcoin and add value to the bitcoin network.  If it isn't, then it can be ignored. 

In many ways sidechains will separate the phonies from the true innovators.  It is needed. 

These guys making sidechains are extremely vested in bitcoin.  I am sure they all have huge stashes and are doing this to protect their investment. 

By allowing side chains into bitcoin, it makes it soooooo much difficult for an alt to gain a network effect to challenge Bitcoin. 

[Gavin Andresen]

These guys making sidechains are extremely vested in bitcoin.  I am sure they all have huge stashes and are doing this to protect their investment.  

"Huge stashes" is a bad assumption. Tweet from Jeff Garzik earlier this year:
  "As such, I dare to do what few if any others do:   My #bitcoin balance is 348.006 BTC."

I'm guessing other frequent contributors have this mindset:

I'm investing a lot of time into this, because it is interesting, fun, potentially world-changing, and might be good for my career.
Since I'm investing so much time and expertise, I'm not going to invest a lot of my hard-earned money-- I see how risky Bitcoin is, and I'm not willing to "go all in" with both my time AND my savings.

And I'm sure lots of early adopters thought:

I bought 100 BTC at $1.  They are now $10. I would be an idiot not to cash out half of them and lock in that insane, 10x return. I'll keep 50 just in case the price ever goes to $100.

[OleOle]

but it would be worse than just using Bitcoin.

The more I look at this proposal the more I get the idea that sidechains might be a distraction that they don't ever intend anyone to actually use.

Maybe there's something else that could be done with those new opcodes.

I agree, I'm not persuaded by any of the supposed technical suggestions pro-offered on this thread.

 

[tvbcof]

I believe the main reason why we're in disagreement is because I think that the focus should be aimed at solving problems on the biggest and most secure blockchain in the world (Bitcoin), rather than implementing or trying to implement sidechains so we can incorporate a lot of smaller, let's call them ways to exchange different "tokens". The fact that this is driven by a for profit organization which will actually be touching the Bitcoin codebase and that has centralization on it's agenda concerns me greatly.

Hence I'd rather see us all working in unity to solve the problems we're facing on the main chain, rather than anywhere else.

Why 'biggest'?  In my area people struggle mightily to have the biggest tires on their pickup truck.  The theory/running joke is that the motivation for this desire is correlated with psychological issues brought on by sub-par genital mass.  The problem with giant tires on a pickup truck are many due implementation problems, and the inherent tradeoffs start to make the vehicle be actually useful for almost nothing...except perhaps impressing one's like-minded friends who are typically straight and of the same gender making the effort a costly exercise in frustration.

As for security, a blockchain is a blockchain.  It's security is associated with a certain number of factors.  The difficulty of subverting it is synonymous with 'security' in my mind.  That is associated with the hashing power that went into it, the ability of it to build freely and securely, and the amount of distribution.

Sidechains would promote at least the same amount of Bitcoin blockchain hashing since it would be necessary even if/when it is unprofitable to mine Bitcoin alone.  If the Bitcoin blockchain could remain small and tight this would promote distribution which would help mitigate various forms of attack and provide a lot of flexibility in fighting against attacks if/when they do occur.

Please please please understand that those of us who are enthusiastic about sidechains are very much interested in their ability to defend the Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin as both a source of monetary value as well as an empowering technology for individuals.  Sidechains are completely about Bitcoin in my mind and I think it likely that the same can be said for most of those who share my enthusiasm for the solution.

I do think it's fair to make some progress in pruning in a manner as described in Satoshi's whitepaper (or a better method of achieving the same effect) before simply tweaking the block size (which is a simple setting made at compile time.)  If this development (pruning) has been de-prioritized in order to focus on newer and better GUI's then it's time to pay the piper.

[tvbcof]

And I'm sure lots of early adopters thought:

I bought 100 BTC at $1.  They are now $10. I would be an idiot not to cash out half of them and lock in that insane, 10x return. I'll keep 50 just in case the price ever goes to $100.

I'm sure another bunch thought "The potential, if unlikely, future-value of the BTC I hold is enormous.  It would be insane to throw that away for a few peanuts that I don't really need even if it is 10x what I put in."

My own strategy was to recoup my initial investment at 10x so I had 90% left to ride the wave (which I always consider unlikely to actually develop.)  It must be said, though, that I got in after the $30 wave so I was at least aware that such waves were a demonstrated possibility.  Actually I really did think it of value to soak up extra liquidity at the end of 2011 (and it was a hell of a lot easier than actually participating in development.)  Man-oh-man was I well rewarded for my altruism on that one!

Another bunch of people seem to have thought that the best investment was to give the BTC away in an attempt to foster interest in the solution.  Those who did so have my enduring respect for that action.  You and Jeff come to mind.  I myself used Bitcoin almost exclusively to make donations to further causes I saw as valuable in the early parts of my Bitcoin involvement, and the more involved persons who were similarly inclined were a motivation for me to do so.

[Syke]

High transaction fees:

7 tps limit:

5 bitcoins (transaction reward) / 4200 (tranactions per block) = 0.001190 transaction fee. Way too high for the consumer paying his hamburger at a restaurant.

Actually, that's about the price he is currently paying due to credit card fees, it's just hidden so he doesn't know he's paying it.

[tvbcof]

...
For the record, I never touched any alts other than Namecoin and Litecoin.  Namecoin was never about value, and I only dabbled in Litecoin like a hedge more than anything else, although I had little doubt that ASICs would make their way to SCRYPT as quickly as they made their way to Bitcoin (this was before ASICs, and I had no idea they would make it to either near as quickly as they did).  That having been said, as I have previously stated, when the idea of sidechains came about, it was so that non-Bitcoin functions could take advantage of the biggest most secure blockchain without bloating it with non-Bitcoin information.  To that end, I am not against sidechains, and would even say it would have made sense for Namecoin to be a sidechain if it were going to catch on and actually compete with our centralized domain name registry.  However, I have yet to see obvious any arguments that adding complication and storing Bitcoin information outside of the Bitcoin blockchain will actually solve any legitimate problems.

For the record, I never touched Namecoin or Litecoin because I was to lazy.  Both of these I thought of as 'good' things and created for basically the right reasons.  Probably...I was to lazy to research them fully.

Namecoin in particular was of high value and I would dearly love to see it implemented on a sidechain.  Going off on a bit of a tangent, yesterday my power was out and when it came back on, every http/https web page was being intercepted on both of my computers and sending me to a page which said that my 'mydish' account was suspended.  I don't and never did have an account with Dish Networks, and my system (Exede) does not even use the same satellites.  This was happening on both my unix box set to use Google's resolvers and my windows box which gets the resolvers via DHCP.  This means that either my router or modem was hijackable, or that Exede's abilities to intercept and modify traffic was compromised.  It actually was not a DNS issue because nslookup worked and going http://{ip} also resulted in a redirect to mydish.com.  The issue cleared up while I was on the phone with tech support and they agreed that it was very bizarre and they claim they had never heard of it.  Anyway, it's scary stuff to those with a basic understanding of traffic shaping and it should be a warning to those who feel that there is no way we'll ever see problems of excessive control down here on the consumer side of the Internet...even in 'free democratic' countries.

Lastly (and back closer to topic), I would point out that to Bitcoin a sidechain should look much like any old user.  It is no more 'storing Bitcoin information outside of the Bitcoin blockchain' than it would be keeping one's private keys private.  To the extent that it is, that is a good thing in my mind.  There is utterly no need to document your purchase of a hamburger in a persistent (forever) way which is replicated on multiple copies of the blockchain and distributed around the world.  Cool as it may be, it costs money and limits flexibility.  It is also something of a privacy issue to be honest.