Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol] - page 4. (Read 15367 times)

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12170746

But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.

Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."

Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.

This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.

Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."

And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6

Excellent post with much needed enlightenment around the crucial aspect which tends to be forgotten within the blocksize debate, namely, how should the "base money" of the internet be structured?
In this discussion, I would like to raise a few clarifying points:
1) Distributed asset ledgers are the first protocol instance of where the stakeholder to a ledger, and not the ledger operator, has control over the ledger assets (the importance of this cannot be overstated - it is the most crucial aspect of Satoshis discovery). Up until now, technological developments within finance have been limited to digitizing the record of account held with financial institutions. Banks have so far been shielded from disruption as the basic premise, that they are the account operator, has never before been under question.
2) As such, it is the first time that access to "base money", without counterparty risks, is available to everyone - as you mentioned, central banks only allow commercial banks to hold accounts in "base money", everyone else is left holding bank issued credit. Any limitation of this availability will ensure that we are back to the model whereby we need to trust a third party with custody of our assets.
3) Nearly every clearing model is based upon a net deferred settlement cycle, i.e. settlement does not happen until certain time-periods every day when all obligations to deliver are conducted through Delivery vs Payment (DvP) or Payment vs Payment (PvP). This is normal, and will work the same way even with the internet's "base money". When settlement is conducted, it is crucial that the multiple accounts can have a simultaneous discharge of obligations, i.e. the blocksize needs to be large enough to allow for the net settlement between the multitude of accounts/addresses to be included in one block/transaction which may be significantly larger than 1mb, even if the blockchain purely functions as a large value payments system.
In closing, I would like to raise a few points:
I understand that there is a strong desire to maintain the blockchain as trustless and distributed, but is the 1mb blocksize, whereby everyone is forced onto "commercial bank ledgers" - a.k.a. federated chains with one, or several, trusted third party, the way to go?
If we maintain the 1mb limit, will the "commercial banks" or sidechains be able to conduct settlement on a net deferred basis?
It seems to me a low blocksize will guarantee that bitcoin not only has centralized mining, but will also force people onto centrally controlled sidechains that may or may not be operated by a central account operator who can decide when you have access to your assets, under what circumstance you have access to your assets and how you will be able to access them.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

...

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.