Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain? - page 3.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:49:45 AM

OK, so you know for a fact that bugs can be fixed easily without needing an alternate chain.

Seriously - we were extremely lucky that the fork didn't cause a lot more trouble.

Perhaps you are not the kind of person to bother with things like "insurance" but I can assure you that the financial world and big business in general are never going to "put all their eggs in one blockchain".

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 10:15:16 AM

It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).

OK, so you know for a fact that bugs can be fixed easily without needing an alternate chain.

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 10:15:16 AM

Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).

Well, yes. That's the point of people suggesting a larger block size, so that more people can buy coffee (and other trivial stuff) simultaneously. What's the point of this argument?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:12:56 AM

How can the Bitcoin's blockchain fail, considering the amount of nodes and miners connected today? You would need a meteorite or something to make it fail.

It only needs one serious "zero day" bug to be found to cause a fork (and we already have had one).

Also any stuff about "buying coffee" for Bitcoins at the moment is just plain "silly" (the entire network could only handle 7 TPS - I think you'll find a lot more coffees than 7 per second are sold throughout the world - so if we all started trying to buy our coffees with Bitcoin we'd only succeed in killing Bitcoin).

Having separate chains for things like "vouchers" can do a lot to alleviate trying to do everything on the one blockchain.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 10:07:57 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:04:04 AM

What? Fee replacement only allows you to replace the fee, how can that bring a totally new transaction into play? Also, when I said you can accept unconfirmed transactions most of the time, I said “most” because you can predict that a transaction won't be confirmed and reject those.

Yes - sorry - I forgot that fee replacement is supposed to check that the UTXOs don't change.

But even Gavin firmly advises no-one to accept zero confirmation payments with anything of more than trivial value.

But we're talking about things of trivial value, aren't we?

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 10:05:20 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:01:39 AM

Ok, so you can have your Stockchain for things like this, but for people who use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be a headache to have to constantly exchange currencies just because you can't have all of it in the same chain.

For certain I am not advocating that one should be constantly having to shift funds around from blockchain to blockchain but just that having more than one kind of blockchain is a form of "insurance" against the failure of any particular one.

How can the Bitcoin's blockchain fail, considering the amount of nodes and miners connected today? You would need a meteorite or something to make it fail.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:04:04 AM

What? Fee replacement only allows you to replace the fee, how can that bring a totally new transaction into play? Also, when I said you can accept unconfirmed transactions most of the time, I said “most” because you can predict that a transaction won't be confirmed and reject those.

Yes - sorry - I forgot that fee replacement is supposed to check that the UTXOs don't change.

But even Gavin firmly advises no-one to accept zero confirmation payments with anything of more than trivial value.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 10:01:39 AM

Ok, so you can have your Stockchain for things like this, but for people who use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be a headache to have to constantly exchange currencies just because you can't have all of it in the same chain.

For certain I am not advocating that one should be constantly having to shift funds around from blockchain to blockchain but just that having more than one kind of blockchain is a form of "insurance" against the failure of any particular one.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 10:01:23 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:59:38 AM

How come?

Because it would allow you to create a tx with a very low fee (that would have little chance of confirming in days) and then replace it with another tx with a higher fee.

Easy money!

What? Fee replacement only allows you to replace the fee, how can that bring a totally new transaction into play? Also, when I said you can accept unconfirmed transactions most of the time, I said “most” because you can predict that a transaction won't be confirmed and reject those.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 09:57:52 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:54:55 AM

I, like most people in the world, do not have such things as stocks. Why would this be relevant?

Because in the future stocks will be on blockchains also as will property titles, etc.

I would rather that we don't have the world's entire assets relying upon one single blockchain.

Ok, so you can have your Stockchain for things like this, but for people who use Bitcoin as a currency, it would be a headache to have to constantly exchange currencies just because you can't have all of it in the same chain.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:59:38 AM

How come?

Because it would allow you to create a tx with a very low fee (that would have little chance of confirming in days) and then replace it with another tx with a higher fee.

Easy money!

It is already possible to effectively do this at the moment (but it's not very easy to do which is why we don't really see this happening much now).

EDIT: removed "brainfart"

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 09:58:33 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:55:46 AM

Because double-spending is the easiest thing in the world.

With fee replacement it actually would be extremely easy for anyone to do.

How come?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:55:46 AM

Because double-spending is the easiest thing in the world.

With fee replacement it actually would be extremely easy for nearly anyone to do (as tools would be created to do it for you).

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:54:55 AM

I, like most people in the world, do not have such things as stocks. Why would this be relevant?

Because in the future stocks will be on blockchains also as will property titles, etc.

I would rather that we don't have the world's entire assets relying upon one single blockchain.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 09:48:23 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:44:39 AM

For most stuff, it's safe to accept an unconfimed transaction and be happy with it. I don't understand why people argue about this non-issue.

Really - if we end up adding transaction fee replacement (which is expected to occur) then a lot of people are going to be stealing an awful amount of stuff if vendors are silly enough to accept unconfirmed transactions.

Because double-spending is the easiest thing in the world.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:47:33 AM

I have more than one bank account, but all of them are in the same currency (MXN). I don't want to have to exchange currencies just to be able to buy a cup of coffee.

Clearly you don't have much in the way of serious investments (where are your stocks and property?).

I, like most people in the world, do not have such things as stocks. Why would this be relevant?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Elwar on February 06, 2015, 09:45:13 AM

One blockchain for currency is ideal.

If you want other blockchains, there are plenty. They are called alts.

The whole "currency" thing is what tends to blind people (and cause most of the silliness).

Blockchains are going to have a hell of a lot more to offer us than currencies (and you should know this better than most).

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:47:33 AM

I have more than one bank account, but all of them are in the same currency (MXN). I don't want to have to exchange currencies just to be able to buy a cup of coffee.

Clearly you don't have much in the way of serious investments (where are your stocks and property?).

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: R2D221 on February 06, 2015, 09:44:39 AM

For most stuff, it's safe to accept an unconfimed transaction and be happy with it. I don't understand why people argue about this non-issue.

Really - if we end up adding transaction fee replacement (which is expected to occur) then a lot of people are going to be stealing an awful amount of stuff if vendors are silly enough to accept unconfirmed transactions.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on February 06, 2015, 09:39:22 AM

Having multiple blockchains that work in different ways is just a "sensible" approach or do you keep all of your assets in one single bank account?

I have more than one bank account, but all of them are in the same currency (MXN). I don't want to have to exchange currencies just to be able to buy a cup of coffee.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

One blockchain for currency is ideal.

If you want other blockchains, there are plenty. They are called alts.

I like Bitcoin for the BitPools voting because it is the most secure protocol in the world. That is kinda handy for voting.

Topic: Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain? - page 3. (Read 2897 times)