Topic: Blockchain 2.0 – Let a Thousand Chains Blossom - page 2. (Read 8138 times)

+1 +1 +1 Exactly what I was thinking.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money.   Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money.   There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment.  Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.    

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

That's stupid, but if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid 

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race', the security fallacy of hash power, and has a giant security hole that would compromise entire side chains.  It has embraced a concept of centralization in a one-world currency, one block chain, etc.  It has embraced barriers to entry by not enabling support for cross-chain-trading.



Based on this description it works just like a system I designed last fall in my effort to create parallel chains with shared supply.  The problem is that when using pow the side chain funds can be completely robbed because the main chain cannot validate anything but the existence of the trx on the side chain.  So to do this the btc miners still have to do full validation on all side chains. 

This major security risk has not been mitigated.

In other words 51% attack on side chain allows attacker to steal full balance of side chain by transferring 100 % of it back to btc chain under their control.   Btc miners would see the transaction exists on the side chain but have no way of knowing it was invalid because they blindly trust the hash power. 

This makes new side chains very vulnerable unless all btc miners merge mine it.

If you eliminate the contrived idea of a scarcity race and the false security of hash power there is nothing to this Blockchain 2.0.   

Integrating a technology like BTS X into a side chain would require significant R&D... the ideas behind BTS X are easy, implementing them is much harder.  Assuming BitBTC works then we have achieved a peg with BTC already without needing their system.  Cross-chain-trading is all that Bitcoin needs to support, could be implemented today without any modifications.  You do not see Bitcoin developers / mining pool operators working to enable this support which would literally be a few lines of code to add it to the standard transaction type.

The bitcoin elite (pool operators and miners) *own* the sha256 space and thus want to expand their monopoly.  Bitcoin has a network effect, but with cross-chain-trading that network effect can quickly and easily benefit all alt-chains... but their behavior demonstrates that they have been corrupted by the ring of power.  Like the elite before them they are inventing economic concepts (scarcity race) just like the fed invents terms (QE, disinflation, paradox of thrift, etc) to justify their moves.  They are working with regulators already which means they will likely support moves to freeze accounts so that they can continue the gravy train.



These factors demonstrate to me that regardless of how large the BTC network effect is, they will not be able to out compete everyone because there will always be a market for a more decentralized system than bitcoin offers.

I like the idea, so the main chain would have some of it's original coins migrating to the new chains thus keeping constant token scarcity.

Q)
Would heirachy exist, or could a new chain bud potentially outgrow the "main chain" and thus be seen as the new "main chain"?

Blockchain2.0, i'll keep an eye out for it.

this is definitely a valid point.

mining concentration is a major concern that has to be "solved" someway, and 2-way peg sidechains do not have any cure for it  IMHO.   

it's all a matter of incentive. e.g. a way to make p2pool less cumbersome and as efficent as possible has to be found.

or maybe we need to find a way for the people to partecipate to a pool without being a mere hasher but a real miner, if memory serves Adam Back in LTB E77 briefly talk about this.   

 

It is an interesting concept, but from where I currently stand (there's no white paper), it seems to me this adds risk to the very core of bitcoin for the purpose of allowing side chains of questionable utility.  Let's work together to first make bitcoin succeed as is.  

I'd rather keep experimental alt coins on their own independent networks.  We can still bootstrap them in a non-inflationary manner from a snapshot of the blockchain using the concept of "spin-offs":  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/spin-offs-bootstrap-an-altcoin-with-a-btc-blockchain-based-initial-distribution-563972

Nakomoto is a genius with an innovative idea.

Everyone else is just trying to copy - to see if they can cash in big if their altcoin or "2.0" coin flies.

Strength in Bitcoin would be if we stick to making the original Bitcoin better.

The risk is that the proposal could create gatekeepers to innovation via the big bitcoin mining pools, because only the "2.0" chains the big pools agree to merge mine (that may not quite be the right phrase) will get to participate in this two-way peg.

If I had to guess I'd say that is somehow part of their business model, but we'll have to wait and see.

Sure.

As I see it that they're working to improve bitcoin, the actual bitcoin not a alter-ego 2.0.

It seems to me that they're not building a new cryptocurr from scratch, they're leveraging the value of the blockchain to remove potential risks for the bitcoin survival.

Among all the things they talk about the more important to me are:

- preserve bitcoin scarcity,
- increase the pace of innovation without risking to make everything collaps
- increase/preserve fungibility

Anyway I'm eagerly waiting for official material/whitepaper, as of now the words of Adam Back should suffice as guarantee of the value of the proposal.

Agreed that Bitcoin needs to succeed and resources are required to make that happen.

The more competition, the better.
Market will decide the winner and losers.

IMO the best news I've heard in months.  I hope it succeeds.

Look worse? Pity that my bright orange ignore button is not visible now. U wouldn't waste time on posting ur opinion in this case. Better find a girl, maybe she will be interested in what u saying.

Instead of building Bitcoin 2.0 lets just put all resources to making bitcoin succeed we haven't yet and there's still a lot of work to do. Until then all bitcoin/blockchain base currencies are a waste of time.

Another stupid ass comment with no actual facts. Cheers mate, you're just making yourself look worse. Might as well stop while you're ahead.

If u didn't get it then ask ur mom.