4 ms·

Bitcoin is also traded off-network so the market would remain liquid and you'd be paying miners an extra $300,000 per block so they could easily afford the tran

Bitcoin is also traded off-network so the market would remain liquid and you'd be paying miners an extra $300,000 per block so they could easily afford the transaction fees to settle large amounts. You'd just make Bitcoin a reserve currency.

bduerst 10y ago
Sidechains still require the bitcoin network to validate eventually, otherwise they are just another payment system. They also don't scale with users. Ethereum & Monero have become popular enough that most people would just switch to that rather than go to lightning. Then the whack-a-mole begins.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Yeah, and the cost to do that in this scenario is $72. Comparatively expensive, but you're flooding the network with money... Anchoring a sidechain just increases the resources needed to tamper with it, as if it itself had a higher proof of work. It doesn't need to happen every ten blocks or any set number. As often as possible is good enough. Sidechains can even have sidechains. If the $72 was too expensive that chain can support hundreds of other chains anchoring into it, spreading the costs. But most people would still just use exchanges and as long as the exchanges settle often enough that their government-mandated floats cover the difference, what do they care if the underlying network itself is slow?
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Again, side chains do _not_ scale with users. On a side chain, 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people costs $72 and takes ten minutes, but 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people costs $72,000,000 and takes over a month. "Most People" in the market for cryptocurrencies will just switch to ethereum or monero.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > "Most People" in the market for cryptocurrencies will just switch to ethereum or monero. That's fallacy one - assuming nobody notices the attack and realizes that if one coin falls, the next could too. You can't assume an unaware population. This isn't politics, people are paying attention because their money is on the line. Also, in this scenario you're dumping a ton of money into the coin to make it die ... that provides a tremendous pressure to make it live. > Again, side chains do _not_ scale with users. This is a blanket statement that may apply to one or more pathological sidechains, but does not generalize. The scaling of sidechains depends on the structure of the chain, trust requirements, and other usage decisions. This is utterly independent of what it's linked to, and only partly related to how often you link to the upstream chain. > On a side chain, 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people costs $72 and takes ten minutes, but 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people costs $72,000,000 and takes over a month. lmftfy - "On X sidechain design ...."
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Which fallacy is that? The "fallacy" of substitute goods? Burden of proof is on you at this point. Maybe in your haste to cry fallacy you just forgot to mention an actual Bitcoin side chain that would be competitive with Ethereum or Montero in that situation?
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > Which fallacy is that? The "fallacy" of substitute goods? That your opponents won't notice this happening to the first currency. You're trying to starve the system with billions of dollars of transactions! You're discussing taking on the coins in order, but you only get one element of surprise. > Maybe in your haste to cry fallacy you just forgot to mention an actual Bitcoin side chain that would be competitive with Ethereum or Montero in that situation? No, I did but you didn't notice. The off-network exchanges. They're already what 90% of coin holders think of bitcoin as, so they wouldn't notice or care that big transactions between exchanges took a long time to settle. Like I don't care where or when my physical bank trucks the paper money. Also, the $1B / month you're injecting would fund a lot of work on the ecosystem. > Burden of proof is on you at this point. No, it doesn't swap back and forth every post. When I discount your vampire-bats plan by pointing out the sun, I don't suddenly have to prove the existence of the sun.

bduerst 10y ago

Sidechains still require the bitcoin network to validate eventually, otherwise they are just another payment system. They also don't scale with users. Ethereum & Monero have become popular enough that most people would just switch to that rather than go to lightning. Then the whack-a-mole begins.

EdHominem 10y ago
Yeah, and the cost to do that in this scenario is $72. Comparatively expensive, but you're flooding the network with money... Anchoring a sidechain just increases the resources needed to tamper with it, as if it itself had a higher proof of work. It doesn't need to happen every ten blocks or any set number. As often as possible is good enough. Sidechains can even have sidechains. If the $72 was too expensive that chain can support hundreds of other chains anchoring into it, spreading the costs. But most people would still just use exchanges and as long as the exchanges settle often enough that their government-mandated floats cover the difference, what do they care if the underlying network itself is slow?
- bduerst 10y ago
  Again, side chains do _not_ scale with users. On a side chain, 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people costs $72 and takes ten minutes, but 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people costs $72,000,000 and takes over a month. "Most People" in the market for cryptocurrencies will just switch to ethereum or monero.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > "Most People" in the market for cryptocurrencies will just switch to ethereum or monero. That's fallacy one - assuming nobody notices the attack and realizes that if one coin falls, the next could too. You can't assume an unaware population. This isn't politics, people are paying attention because their money is on the line. Also, in this scenario you're dumping a ton of money into the coin to make it die ... that provides a tremendous pressure to make it live. > Again, side chains do _not_ scale with users. This is a blanket statement that may apply to one or more pathological sidechains, but does not generalize. The scaling of sidechains depends on the structure of the chain, trust requirements, and other usage decisions. This is utterly independent of what it's linked to, and only partly related to how often you link to the upstream chain. > On a side chain, 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people costs $72 and takes ten minutes, but 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people costs $72,000,000 and takes over a month. lmftfy - "On X sidechain design ...."
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Which fallacy is that? The "fallacy" of substitute goods? Burden of proof is on you at this point. Maybe in your haste to cry fallacy you just forgot to mention an actual Bitcoin side chain that would be competitive with Ethereum or Montero in that situation?
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > Which fallacy is that? The "fallacy" of substitute goods? That your opponents won't notice this happening to the first currency. You're trying to starve the system with billions of dollars of transactions! You're discussing taking on the coins in order, but you only get one element of surprise. > Maybe in your haste to cry fallacy you just forgot to mention an actual Bitcoin side chain that would be competitive with Ethereum or Montero in that situation? No, I did but you didn't notice. The off-network exchanges. They're already what 90% of coin holders think of bitcoin as, so they wouldn't notice or care that big transactions between exchanges took a long time to settle. Like I don't care where or when my physical bank trucks the paper money. Also, the $1B / month you're injecting would fund a lot of work on the ecosystem. > Burden of proof is on you at this point. No, it doesn't swap back and forth every post. When I discount your vampire-bats plan by pointing out the sun, I don't suddenly have to prove the existence of the sun.