Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 762. (Read 2032266 times)

 

the logic is sidecoin offers a feature that is not available on the Bitcoin chain.

Keep reading, sidechains are in no manner similar to altcoins. That is so far off the the mark that it is simply FUD at this point.

You can easily innovate with new PoW options for example, those sidechains by definition could not MM with Bitcoin and would need their own miners, but that is fine. SC could also have new incentive structures (such as different fees) or different ways to store/compress blocks or different ways to communicate transactions. You can make them be anything you want.

The point clearly went over your head. SC is not for testing features, it is for implementing features.

If you've ever tried to role out new software to an installed user base you would understand why this is so useful.

But sidechains were not create to create altcoins. There is something called altcoins that exist for that purpose

my answer is categorically NO.

it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red.

in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support it.

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.

Because Bitcoin is more secure, hence the reserve, or vault comparison.

Sure it might come a point where everyone wanting to use BTC as day-to-day currency will leave them on a sidechain for convenience purposes but while some transfer parties value convenience, anonymity or what not, others value security.

And Bitcoin is inherently more secure than any sidechains. For that reason it will continue to be used for high value transfer, inter-bank settlements and what not

I think the problem is you are misguided as to what people value. Different strokes for different folks. That's the beauty of sidechains

how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements? 


SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

sure!

NO

How? well, first you make the change to the protocol and the market does the rest.

so my question is is it possible yes or no?

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

This is incorrect.

Sidechains provide a decentralized mechanism to implement new features, not simply test. This is the entire spirit of Bitcoin's decentralized & open design.

On the Testnet you can only test new features, not implement globally and drive adoption. The reason new features have stalled is Bitcoin has grown too big to easily change things. This a tremendous risk in the long run.

Today new features can only be implemented through centralized players in a highly political environment through global agreement to change at once, which is too hard. This both makes it next to impossible to implement new features and there is a risk of bad actors implementing negative features.

For example, let's say you want to add Zerocoin functionality. How is this even remotely possible today? The hurdles are so high that it is next to impossible. Also, assume you did do it and somehow got everyone to agree to the changes, but then you find out later the implementation was a little off and needed adjustment, again the hurdle is too high to make these corrections.

On the other hand, with sidechains any one of us could easily create and fully deploy zerocoin functionality. You could make and launch version A and I could make and launch version B, and the best version would gain global adoption. That is infinitely better than the situation today.

This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.

Instead of focusing on the beauty of this, 3 people on this thread are falsely beating a "sidecoins will cause inflation" horse that is FUD and simply not true.

if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.

as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.

Or maybe it is more like

10% from SC1, 5% from SC2, 2% from SC3, 3% from SC4, 20% from SC5, 30% from SC6, 30% from BTC.

Don't you think?

Also, the premise of your argument is that there are effectively no more tx happening on the Bitcoin network. You have yet to come up with a plausible scenario as to how this would happen. Considering its reserve status, my impression is that maybe the number of transactions would be fewer but the value of each of them would be considerably larger than on other chains.

That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

you'll have to phrase the first one differently because I don't quite get what you're saying. what do you mean by "stop converting into the main chain". how do you qualify more valuable chains? more txs?

As for your question.


You expect that all txs converge to one chain and create THE most valuable chain for miners to mine but in a world of sidechain how does that work? Is it the anonymous chain? Is it the fast tx chain? How does the miner decide? Maybe... just maybe... he should mine... ALL of them. Does that not make sense to you?

My deductions can be wrong, but Im talking about a situation where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

As time goes on and the block chain subsidy is reduced is it conceivable that a situation could arise where I MM and as a miner I can get 95% of my income from MM SC and 5% while MM bitcoin? is it not?

That doesn't make much sense. Can you explain your thoughts on the mechanics of that?

when you stop converting into the main chain and you have lots of other more valuable chains this is called inflation.

I'm still unsure where miners get there intensive to support a chain that docent provide a mining investment. when you can explain that you'll have me.

this is where you are continuously wrong.

the incentive structure doesn't get avoided, it merely expands into sub network of shared value