[gossip about personalities]
This seems very plausible.
It's also irrelevant.
20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.
You still haven't answered my bolded question below.
I have reviewed the
pegged side-chains idea at Blockstream. The idea is BTC value can be moved to orthogonal blockchains. Assuming these "pegged coins" remain fungible (which is dubious and probably an incorrect assumption[1]), then in theory the shared-in-common unit-of-account network effects are not hindered, yet the network effects due to interoperability is lost because competing chains are not required to interopt, i.e. spending from one chain to another might require a trip back through the Bitcoin blockchain which defeats the scalability due to constricting the Bitcoin blocksize.
Pegged side-chains are a hack that move the same problems that need to be fixed in the main blockchain to the side-chain, but the fundamental problem remains. Worse they destroy interoperability and probably create a huge mess of fungibility.
Bottom line is that Bitcoin is an overly complex, highly flawed mess that can not be fixed. There is only one outcome which will be accepted by the masses, which is the one where they are insured and protected by the State, i.e. Coinbase, Paypal, Circle (CPC). Whether this is achieved with huge blocks (much greater than 20 MB eventually) and centralized Bitcoin mining, or CPC interoption on their proprietary "side-chains" is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter which choice is made now, the effectual outcome on the masses will be the same.[1] For example someone creates a side-chain with anonymity, so then these coins on the Bitcoin blockchain become tainted and subject to blacklisting.
BTC's "intrinsic value" is the fact is fulfills Aristotle's criteria for good money better than anything else (except Monero).
The BTC price is rising in terms of the last 5/4/3 years. Zero to $250, by way of $1200. Excellent performance by any definition.
The price rises when more people act on the optimistic zoomed out view than a cherry-picked local retrace.
You apparently have fooled yourself into believing the market performance of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the promotion of Bitcoin by the mainstream media (and thus implicitly by the banksters who own the mainstream media) or that you believe the MSM can be induced to cover a grassroots, virally growing phenomenon w/o the blessing of the banksters. I assert that if you were to go against their aims and goals (which you won't be able to do any way, Gavincoin has already won), then they would pull the plug on your fork and you would learn about the reverse wealth effect (the fact that the market cap != the amount of capital invested in the coin and this levered effect is a snowball uphill and downhill).
The synergy of believing Bitcoin is an improved money along with the prospect of future scaling of Bitcoin to the world's txns, is what drives wealth effect you love. Take away one, you lose the other. I do hope you try to fork Gavincoin.
The smart money already knows all about the hard UXTO limit, and is therefor investing in systems built on the core blockchain which offload tx pressure to sidechains and other off-main-chain whatnot.
If one had unlimited number of side-chains, this would fundamentally scale even without changing the fundamental design of the ledger for those side-chains. Those side-chains might even be non-public and/or non-decentralized ledgers (and perhaps even fractional reserves, etc).
I don't consider that option as viable is because currency requires a fungible unit-of-exchange (although there is an argument against this with real-time exchange between side-chains, which is an argument I presented ... but not sure if this is realistic or not). So side-chains won't help scale to the transaction volume of the world. We must fix the fundamental decentralized crypto design, or accept centralized morass (which btw won't scale either so that is yet another reason the NWO coin is going to be a dying paradigm...to be toppled by 2033).
An unlimited number of non-fungible side-chains might be useful for smart contracts but not for money.
As for the Gresham's Law.
Yes, I do want people to HLOD their BTC. Hoarding helps the price in terms of fiat trash rise, and invigorates the beneficial feedback loops driving adoption which ultimately result in a race condition that breaks petrodollar hegemony. It's the Cartmanland principle: if people can't have Bitcoin they will want it more than ever.
As much as the people jealously crave platinum, plutonium, and Astatine.
I specifically didn't mention gold because it is shiny and dense and thus has other appealing attributes for people besides its rare monetary value.
This ship is going to hit an iceberg, stop dead in its tracks and start leaking water as soon as the 1MB limit is hit consistently.
Bro, do you even Nassim Taleb?
If you did, you'd already know antifragile systems
require adversity to grow stronger (BTW, BTC is not analogous to The Titanic).
Conceptually I agree. But realize that creative destruction of species is often a result of competition in evolution.
The UXTO set is only the current bottleneck for scaling BTC to Visa++ levels of retail usage. There are many others waiting in the wings (*cough, 10 min. block time, cough*).
Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is simply not the right tool for real-time retail POS interfaces. Bitcoin's Mother-of-All-Blockchains is a back-office tool.
Okay so considering the trade-offs we have today to choose between (
even VaporCoin was available, it would still be irrelevant to the choice made for Bitcoin),
I have refuted side-chains. What is this back-office Bitcoin going to be used for then?
... XT has branched in such a way you will never really easily know how it is different from Core, except for, yes you guessed it, "just trust us".