4 ms·

> 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

> 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
That's not a formal or informal fallacy. In fact, I'm really not sure what you're getting at with "elements of surprise". Maybe explain more? Again, off-network exchanges still require the network to verify, which means they don't solve the scalability with users (same as side chains). You do need to prove that pink unicorns exist by giving examples, rather than describing it.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > Again, off-network exchanges still require the network to verify, I'm referring to totally off-network exchanges. Most people (sadly) are happy to own bitcoin via an intermediary. They wouldn't notice this attack at all. And the exchanges, settling 10,000+ bitcoins at once, could easily pay any plausible transaction fees, so nothing would even grind to a halt. The attack would prevent me using the local Bitcoin vending machines for $4 purchases, but wouldn't impact the overall settlement of large amounts. > I'm really not sure what you're getting at with "elements of surprise". You say people would migrate off Bitcoin because of the attacks. But really, people would detect and analyze the attack and recognize the intent. They'd make informed decisions in how to respond, given that an adversary of this class wouldn't be likely to give up with only one currency destroyed. > You do need to prove that pink unicorns exist by giving examples, rather than describing it. The only reason to believe that all sidechains must scale badly is one unsourced claim of yours, based presumably on your examination of a subset of the ones that exist. If you care to present a broad proof that the entire concept is impossible, go for it.

bduerst 10y ago

That's not a formal or informal fallacy. In fact, I'm really not sure what you're getting at with "elements of surprise". Maybe explain more? Again, off-network exchanges still require the network to verify, which means they don't solve the scalability with users (same as side chains). You do need to prove that pink unicorns exist by giving examples, rather than describing it.

EdHominem 10y ago
> Again, off-network exchanges still require the network to verify, I'm referring to totally off-network exchanges. Most people (sadly) are happy to own bitcoin via an intermediary. They wouldn't notice this attack at all. And the exchanges, settling 10,000+ bitcoins at once, could easily pay any plausible transaction fees, so nothing would even grind to a halt. The attack would prevent me using the local Bitcoin vending machines for $4 purchases, but wouldn't impact the overall settlement of large amounts. > I'm really not sure what you're getting at with "elements of surprise". You say people would migrate off Bitcoin because of the attacks. But really, people would detect and analyze the attack and recognize the intent. They'd make informed decisions in how to respond, given that an adversary of this class wouldn't be likely to give up with only one currency destroyed. > You do need to prove that pink unicorns exist by giving examples, rather than describing it. The only reason to believe that all sidechains must scale badly is one unsourced claim of yours, based presumably on your examination of a subset of the ones that exist. If you care to present a broad proof that the entire concept is impossible, go for it.