Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 778. (Read 2032266 times)
We can't have democracy without choice. I have one legit chain to point my hardware at. I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin. There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use. As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks. If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
What about telling me what innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )
for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.
I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.
In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.
MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
Quote
4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain
edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?
You cannot transfer thru SC bigger amount then SC has allocated for arbitrage.
1. You want transfer 100 BTC but SC has only 5 btc ready for arbitrage -> you need 20 transactions
2. If MC cost less than 20 SC transactions then you will use MC
equilibrium will be found for MC fees and SC fees.
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
What about telling me what innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?
Think of it, govSC may use compromised cryptographic primitives giving them a back door on all the money.
Then they essentially own key escrow on all the coins and can also automatically tax them as needed. Seize criminal assets etc.
That pretty much solves all the government's problems.
I agree with you. I'll not keep my BTC in govSC. But I would rather trade on gov secured exchange than on MtGox.
If SC are implemented in Bitcoin then Bitcoin is my first choice.
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
win:win
Smaller MC -> save resources. There are a lot thing SC cannot do.
1. create new BTC
2. change amount of BTC in SC.
And there will be thousands SC (every company can have 1 SC for internal accounting, and 1 for public btcShares)
A lot of transactions for MC :-)
This SC transaction(IN/OUT rebalacing) will cost more. (they will be bigger)
Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )
MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?
if that is the point, it won't work.Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.
If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.
If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.
I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC?
NO SIDECHAIN DISCUSSION BELOW THIS LINE:
_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
Innovation = higher price for desirable feature. We are the minority when it comes to hard money as a desirable feature.
You won't lock your BTC in but if you sell your BTC someone will arb.
I cannot imagine that there will ever exist somebody who can hold 1 copy of all world transactions. (if bitcoin is used by everyone) and to keep bitcoin decentralized you need at least 5 copies. (100,000 copies is better :-) )
If this were desired, what would prevent it?
Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )
I think we all agree that NOW is not the basis of this concern.I cannot imagine that there will ever exist somebody who can hold 1 copy of all world transactions. (if bitcoin is used by everyone) and to keep bitcoin decentralized you need at least 5 copies. (100,000 copies is better :-) )
I'm sure that OT is SC (it looks to me as Federated 2-way-peg)
Different in many ways but the fundamental difference is that you don't need to change the Bitcoin protocol. And MM is not logical step in the evolution.
Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?
if that is the point, it won't work.Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.
If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.
If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.
Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )
I think we all agree that NOW is not the basis of this concern. Think of it, govSC may use compromised cryptographic primitives giving them a back door on all the money.
Then they essentially own key escrow on all the coins and can also automatically tax them as needed. Seize criminal assets etc.
That pretty much solves all the government's problems.
I agree with you. I'll not keep my BTC in govSC. But I would rather trade on gov secured exchange than on MtGox.
If SC are implemented in Bitcoin then Bitcoin is my first choice.
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
win:win
Smaller MC -> save resources. There are a lot thing SC cannot do.
1. create new BTC
2. change amount of BTC in SC.
And there will be thousands SC (every company can have 1 SC for internal accounting, and 1 for public btcShares)
A lot of transactions for MC :-)
This SC transaction(IN/OUT rebalacing) will cost more. (they will be bigger)
Transaction fee per block is around 0.15 BTC now. No big deal for miners compared to 25 BTC (12.5 BTC, 6.75 BTC ... )
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains? Jump to: