Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 747.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 07, 2014, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

That's a great way to put it.

It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little.

When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar.

It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 07:54:34 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 06, 2014, 01:16:38 PM

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 and the main thread work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 07:31:48 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 06:29:16 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:24:18 PM

So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.

Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.

no i don't agree. i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk.

ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume.

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views. is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9459338

These are separate threads. Huh

The thread above is regarding perceptions of fault by ordinary users and will Bitcoin beheld responsible for loses (which decreases trust) or will Sidechains be held responsible.

The link'ed thread was regarding the 21M cap protection and whether or not that concept is lost in SC. I've maintained the bitcoin blockmain will protect that.

this is not going well for resulting complexity in understanding. while I'm clear and understand your position and how side chains function

I'm just going to point out the hummer in this situation with a little metaphor:

"Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP." is the main thread, and the side thread 1.0 is a discussion on Side Chains, the respectful tone in which people are conversing after NL's intervention is known as side thread 2.0

we have bug that is a reconciliation disconnect between side thread 1.0 and side thread 2.0 that the contribution to side thread 1.0 was not supposed make you believe they were one and the same, but the side thread 2.0 contributing is supposed to be interpreted as the risk of a SC failure is mitigated because people will think of them as separate.

please dont take offense im just having fun

i respect your input thank you.

Quote from: rocks on November 06, 2014, 01:16:38 PM

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:40:36 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:33:08 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:16:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:07:40 PM

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. Roll Eyes

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" Roll Eyes

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words. i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

Exposing the weaknesses of altcoins to support the advantages of using the sidechain technology.. how dare they do that!

well, if you hadn't said this...

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:55:59 PM

please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins.

...then i wouldn't have said that. and neither would have Melbustus.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

Reposting this since I think it was missed. From one of the sidechains whitepaper authors:

Quote from: Melbustus on October 24, 2014, 08:01:34 PM

Seen this yet?

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf

Quote from: 'Andrew Poelstra'

Of course, “developing your own cryptosystem” is the purview of only cranks and researchers, so it was reasonably assumed that none of these “altcoins”, as they were called, could ever be plausibly presented for public use.
Boy, were we ever wrong on that one.
...
If you are, or are planning to, develop and release an “altcoin” to the public, this document reminds you that you are playing with fire. This sort of behavior was cute on sci.crypt, a community populated mainly by cryptographic experts where there was no risk that your charlatanism would be mistaken for anything legitimate, and where there was no ability to store value in your scheme anyway.
...
The Bitcoin community differs in both those respects. Your crankery is not cute. You are not a cryptographer, and yet are releasing a homebrew cryptosystem, misrepresenting your own qualifications, and encouraging others to store value in your creation. These actions are incompetent, dishonest and reprehensibly dangerous.

lol.

That's Andrew Poelstra's "A Treatise on Altcoins". He's even harsher than many of us in this thread! He's also listed as an author on the sidechains whitepaper.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:33:08 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:16:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:07:40 PM

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. Roll Eyes

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" Roll Eyes

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words. i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

Exposing the weaknesses of altcoins to support the advantages of using the sidechain technology.. how dare they do that!

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:16:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:07:40 PM

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. Roll Eyes

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" Roll Eyes

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

not those exact words. i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:

5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:52:33 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board. Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.

I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers.

At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks.

a cretin class of investor lost wealth, the allocation according to the bitcoin blockchain was unaffected. (I'm glad we could hold someone responsible)
i think people need to learn how to use inelastic memory asset ledgers, I'm not convinced yet we need to adjust and make the ledger more flexible to attract investors who see no value in an inelastic asset of bitcoin as is.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 06:29:16 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:24:18 PM

So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.

Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.

no i don't agree. i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk.

ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume.

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views. is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9459338

These are separate threads. Huh

The thread above is regarding perceptions of fault by ordinary users and will Bitcoin beheld responsible for loses (which decreases trust) or will Sidechains be held responsible.

The link'ed thread was regarding the 21M cap protection and whether or not that concept is lost in SC. I've maintained the bitcoin mainchain will protect that.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:27:04 PM

you're cherry picking old news.

it's changing for the better. for instance, Bitstamp's main investor is Pantera Capital who is not only forcing founders to comply with consumer regs but is also risking equity that can be seized if Bitstamp tries something funny. this is happening across the industry.

Of course, and this actually support my point.

We are going to see MtGoxCHAIN, MoohlahCHAIN but eventually CoinbaseCHAIN, CircleCHAIN or BitstampCHAIN are going to be established and these are the ones "ordinary people" are going to use

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:52:33 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board. Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.

I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers.

At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks.

you're cherry picking old news.

it's changing for the better. for instance, Bitstamp's main investor is Pantera Capital who is not only forcing founders to comply with consumer regs but is also risking equity that can be seized if Bitstamp tries something funny. this is happening across the industry.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:23:55 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:20:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:08:27 PM

look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!

looks legit, would invest +1

the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will.

A fool and his money.... yeah you know the rest

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 07:20:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:08:27 PM

look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!

looks legit, would invest +1

the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:52:33 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board. Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.

I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers.

At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:08:27 PM

look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!

looks legit, would invest +1

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 06:52:33 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board. Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 07:07:40 PM

i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. Roll Eyes

And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" Roll Eyes

The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin.

To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

looks like it can give you everything you can possibly want:

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 747. (Read 2032266 times)