Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain?

[CIYAM]

How can the Bitcoin's blockchain fail, considering the amount of nodes and miners connected today? You would need a meteorite or something to make it fail.

It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).

Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).

Having separate chains for things like "vouchers" can do a lot to alleviate trying to do everything on the one blockchain.

[R2D221]

It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).

OK, so you know for a fact that bugs can be fixed easily without needing an alternate chain.

Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).

Well, yes. That's the point of people suggesting a larger block size, so that more people can buy coffee (and other trivial stuff) simultaneously. What's the point of this argument?

[CIYAM]

OK, so you know for a fact that bugs can be fixed easily without needing an alternate chain.

Seriously - we were extremely lucky that the fork didn't cause a lot more trouble.

Perhaps you are not the kind of person to bother with things like "insurance" but I can assure you that the financial world and big business in general are never going to "put all their eggs in one blockchain".

[R2D221]

Seriously - we were extremely lucky that the fork didn't cause a lot more trouble.

That didn't came out of luck, but out of people who want Bitcoin to succeed and so fixed it as soon as possible.

[CIYAM]

That didn't came out of luck, but out of people who want Bitcoin to succeed and so fixed it as soon as possible.

As soon as possible being the point - it wasn't fixed instantly - if Bitcoin was holding the entire world's economy and that happened then the repercussions would be *enormous*.

There is a reason why NASA have redundant systems - why do they bother if they could just create one perfect one?

There is a reason why "hedge funds" exist and there is a reason why "insurance" exists and why banks actually have their own servers rather than putting everything into the cloud.

It seems the reason for all these things is not clear to you at all (so there is little point continuing the discussion IMO).

[R2D221]

There is a reason why NASA have redundant systems - why do they bother if they could just create one perfect one?

Are 1690 nodes not enough redundancy for you?

[Bit_Happy]

I see room for several alt chains to be wildly successful, and (obviously) we don't need the constant flood of new ones.

[R2D221]

As soon as possible being the point - it wasn't fixed instantly - if Bitcoin was holding the entire world's economy and that happened then the repercussions would be *enormous*.

Of course. It's not magic.

Also, that's the reason Bitcoin is still beta software: so that errors can happen without fucking up with the world. That's why there's not Bitcoin 1.0 yet.

[CIYAM]

Are 1690 nodes not enough redundancy for you?

They are *all running the safe software* so if there is a bug in that software it doesn't matter if there are 1M+ nodes.

Why can you not get this?

[CIYAM]

Also, that's the reason Bitcoin is still beta software: so that errors can happen without fucking up with the world. That's why there's not Bitcoin 1.0 yet.

There is never going to be "one single point of failure" for the entire world's Assets - put simply no government is ever going to allow it (and no large serious business is either).

Any decent software engineer knows "you can never fix all the bugs" so there never will be a Bitcoin 1.0 (in terms of something that is 100% reliable).

[R2D221]

Are 1690 nodes not enough redundancy for you?

They are *all running the safe software* so if there is a bug in that software it doesn't matter if there are 1M+ nodes.

Why can you not get this?

And NASA redundant servers run software different from one another?

[CIYAM]

And NASA redundant servers run software different from one another?

They often have completely different programs to do the same thing just in case one implementation is found to be wrong.

It is also common for large businesses like banks and insurance companies to use more than one computer system (running a completely different OS) to look after their data.

[R2D221]

And NASA redundant servers run software different from one another?

They often have completely different programs to do the same thing just in case one implementation is found to be wrong.

Cool. So, you know there are different implementations for Bitcoin too, right?

[seriouscoin]

This shit is getting ridiculous. Ok you want to another blockchain? head over to Alt and stay there. Why keep making threads in this section. Obviously you just want a complete separate altcoin then insert " trustless system to transfer between them" as some sort of holy grail.

Sad to see bitcoiners decided to go bear and still want to stay relevant by such "innovation"

Talk is cheap, do it, and publish your altcoins and let ppl make their choice. Otherwise, this thread is another spam.

[CIYAM]

Cool. So, you know there are different implementations for Bitcoin too, right?

No there are not (when it comes to the actual consensus) - you need to read a bit more of Gavin and gmaxwell's posts on this to educate yourself a bit more.

[CIYAM]

Talk is cheap, do it, and publish your altcoins and let ppl make their choice. Otherwise, this thread is another spam.

I have *no intention of making a coin at all* (so your challenge is rather pointless).

[R2D221]

No there are not (when it comes to the actual consensus)

How can you have consensus if different software did things differently?

[R2D221]

Talk is cheap, do it, and publish your altcoins and let ppl make their choice. Otherwise, this thread is another spam.

I have *no intention of making a coin at all* (so your challenge is rather pointless).

How is your sidechains proposal not an altcoin?

[CIYAM]

How can you have consensus if different software did things differently?

Exactly why I pointed out the problem with your post.

[CIYAM]

How is your sidechains proposal not an altcoin?

Because it is neither a "sidechain" nor an "altcoin".

Is that easy enough for you?

(it seems that you are expecting me to announce a new "coin")