Topic: When bitcoin allows side chains would anyone still use an alt currency ? (Read 653 times)
August 06, 2015, 09:55:18 PM
I don't believe it will kill alt coins altogether, as there is an appeal to being in something new, fresh and exciting. Also, altcoins tend to have a community spring up around them that many people enjoy being a part of.
August 06, 2015, 08:35:19 PM
the question now should be with p2p alts of various flavors is their any need for bitcoin?
seems a bit animal farmish the whole bitcoin thing now
seems a bit animal farmish the whole bitcoin thing now
August 06, 2015, 07:30:48 PM
It's good to have alternative networks of nodes, miners, and developers supporting alternative cryptos.
Even with side-chains, bitcoin would still be supported by the same network of developers, miners, and node operators.
There is a lot of value in alternative cryptos and many of them are years old. I don't see alternative cryptos dying because bitcoin implements a new feature.
There's nothing stopping alternative cryptos from implementing side-chains as well.
Even with side-chains, bitcoin would still be supported by the same network of developers, miners, and node operators.
There is a lot of value in alternative cryptos and many of them are years old. I don't see alternative cryptos dying because bitcoin implements a new feature.
There's nothing stopping alternative cryptos from implementing side-chains as well.
August 06, 2015, 07:14:59 PM
Edit: I originally thought Satoshi Nakamoto was behind the creation of Namecoin.
But according to the Wiki, he only thought experimented it with others in this forum.
According to the Wiki, the creator of Namecoin is "Vinced".
Here's a thread where Satoshi discusses it with the other members.But according to the Wiki, he only thought experimented it with others in this forum.
According to the Wiki, the creator of Namecoin is "Vinced".
One point that is made is that hashing power shouldn't be diluted by alt coins. Is that the difference between a side-chain and an alt-coin? Namecoin, for example, is able to discover bitcoins. It just discovers Namecoins more frequently due to lower difficulty.
August 06, 2015, 06:33:11 PM
First mover advantage
In this case Ether would likely survive as its had the time to get a developing base
Other alt coins that come after and do side chains will likely not gain as much traction unless they have big capital to support it.
Bitcoin due to its position will still be able to enter fairly safely into side-chains if it's not done to late in the future and another group takes the dominant and solid position.
In this case Ether would likely survive as its had the time to get a developing base
Other alt coins that come after and do side chains will likely not gain as much traction unless they have big capital to support it.
Bitcoin due to its position will still be able to enter fairly safely into side-chains if it's not done to late in the future and another group takes the dominant and solid position.
August 06, 2015, 06:28:14 PM
Yes, I'll still use altcoins,
Because sidechains are not gonna cover all the good stuff of some altcoins. (Monero's anonymous; Darkcoin's InstanTX, etc).
Because sidechains are not gonna cover all the good stuff of some altcoins. (Monero's anonymous; Darkcoin's InstanTX, etc).
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 06, 2015, 06:24:34 PM
Side Chains, in theory, would facilitate features the Main Chain can not (or will not).
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
Would this be a good use case for DNS like Namecoin?So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
Sidechains are in theory supposed to be "tethered" back into the Bitcoin Blockchain.
I do not know if Namecoin does that. If it doesn't it is an altcoin.
But to answer Ops original post, yes I guess Namecoin would be an Altcoin that will be used at that point in time.
If it facilitates a purpose that Bitcoin can not, then it fills the need.
Edit: I originally thought Satoshi Nakamoto was behind the creation of Namecoin.
But according to the Wiki, he only thought experimented it with others in this forum.
According to the Wiki, the creator of Namecoin is "Vinced".
I thought I recalled seeing an interview somewhere on youtube or somewhere with the namecoin founder.
he's not satoshi.
August 06, 2015, 06:03:16 PM
I think that there will always be clever alt coin devs who think of ideas worth having. I don't see alt coins ever going away, only some of them getting stronger and many of them dieing out.
August 06, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
The race among some classes of altcoin will be to supplant whatever chain forms the backing store (initially, at least, Bitcoin.)
I, for one, will take a more active interest in following the altcoin development in this phase because I would welcome a superior solution as a backing-store/reserve-currency than is Bitcoin since it has significant deficiencies which represent chinks in the armor.
I would expect that any backing store which successfully replaces Bitcoin would do so by exchanging value more-or-less one-to-one so as a hodler I do not feel especially threatened by a scenario such as I've described.
August 06, 2015, 04:09:48 PM
I think we are long way away from the day that we are going to be able to do everything with Bitcoin and the help of the sidechains. I don't think tis is easy to do, and us Bitcoiners will make it even harder to do, I mean look at the ongoing block size debate.
Some alts will survive in my opinion and they will fill everything that Bitcoin cannot do at the moment.
Some alts will survive in my opinion and they will fill everything that Bitcoin cannot do at the moment.
August 06, 2015, 04:06:32 PM
Side Chains, in theory, would facilitate features the Main Chain can not (or will not).
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
Would this be a good use case for DNS like Namecoin?So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
Sidechains are in theory supposed to be "tethered" back into the Bitcoin Blockchain.
I do not know if Namecoin does that. If it doesn't it is an altcoin.
But to answer Ops original post, yes I guess Namecoin would be an Altcoin that will be used at that point in time.
If it facilitates a purpose that Bitcoin can not, then it fills the need.
Edit: I originally thought Satoshi Nakamoto was behind the creation of Namecoin.
But according to the Wiki, he only thought experimented it with others in this forum.
According to the Wiki, the creator of Namecoin is "Vinced".
August 06, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
Side Chains, in theory, would facilitate features the Main Chain can not (or will not).
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
Would this be a good use case for DNS like Namecoin?
August 06, 2015, 03:39:21 PM
One thing I don't get with sidechains is when I have a choice to have my bitcoin transactions confirmed on the main chain, why would I want to accept payments or own coins on the sidechain?
Side Chains, in theory, would facilitate features the Main Chain can not (or will not).
So, for example, if you want instant confirmations for/as merchants, then in theory you would use the "Lightning Network".
August 06, 2015, 03:30:19 PM
One thing I don't get with sidechains is when I have a choice to have my bitcoin transactions confirmed on the main chain, why would I want to accept payments or own coins on the sidechain?
August 06, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Ether will slowly die in my view.
Litecoin could implement its own sidechains because it has a robust platform/blockchain.
Litecoin could implement its own sidechains because it has a robust platform/blockchain.
August 06, 2015, 02:45:46 AM
I assume that bitcoin will at some point in the near future allow side chains. Once this happens then is it not likely that the serious new blockchain technologies will also tie themselves to the bitcoin blockchain as a way to demonstrate their validity.
If this happens then what's likely to happen to the many non-bitchain pegged blockchain currencies that have been setting themselves up over the last few years? For example Ethereum has sold its Ether in the start up phase and I think mining has now started. Would the fact that a huge investment has already been made in Ether suggest that Ethereum could never be pegged to the Bitcoin Sidechain without all of the value of the purchased ether being lost?
I hope my ramblings are not too confusing.
If this happens then what's likely to happen to the many non-bitchain pegged blockchain currencies that have been setting themselves up over the last few years? For example Ethereum has sold its Ether in the start up phase and I think mining has now started. Would the fact that a huge investment has already been made in Ether suggest that Ethereum could never be pegged to the Bitcoin Sidechain without all of the value of the purchased ether being lost?
I hope my ramblings are not too confusing.
Jump to: