Quote from: gmaxwell on June 15, 2015, 12:35:55 AM

Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it? Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.

I doubt we will have to wait that long. I believe I am in possession of a significant component of that formula now. Fortunately because of pegged side chains even (if only via federated servers), this formula should be coming to all those who HODL BTC.

Cypherdoc, you are a fool for fighting futility against[1] what is going to save your BTC a$$ BTCutt this year.

Gregory, this block size debate is really just noise and it will be subsumed soon no matter the outcome. Therefor my suggestion is just let them bang their pots and pans together (they must be Italian, lol) and carry on with your important work please.

Also there are bigger picture network effects that have a more high level relevance to decentralization ecosystems.

I haven't fully digested the Blockstream whitepaper. Would you or anyone be so kind as to clarify how pegged side chains won't be prone to fractional reserve debasement:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 13, 2015, 08:20:29 PM

...

Assuming debasement of BTC can be cryptographically prevented (but I can't fathom how that can be possible in a decentralized context Huh

... however I haven't yet entirely digested the Blockstream whitepaper), then I don't see how you justify your claim that Bitcoin might end up supporting altcoins?

(actually I see another way, and it appears to be a win-win paradigm for all involved)

Are users going to be expected to trust peer review of the open source of each side chain to know whether the side chain debases its pegged monetary unit?

[1] Or unwittingly conflating your irrelevant fight for block size increase when you ad hominem the devs of the pegged side chains tech you will de$BTCerately need to deal with a black swan.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 15, 2015, 01:07:09 AM

for the thousandth time, 1MB was a temporary patch to counteract DoS on the network when it was small and vulnerable. today is quite different, which goes to your pt that things have evolved for Bitcoin to easily remove that artificial limit to allow for the inevitable growth that will come in the next spike. cramping it at 1MB, which was never meant to happen, is the height of hypocrisy. many, many ppl including in the technical community that i see here and on reddit feel that the limit should be raised. everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model works and is crucial to outrunning regulation. your small block theory is the epitome of centralization forcing all users off the mainchain and into offchain solutions, some more centralized and regulated than others.

This argument even exists because either direction on the block side decision is flawed, that is if we only are stuck with the current PoW algorithm.

But pegged side chains enable the ability to transfer BTC value to new consensus algorithms (and not just variants of PoS) that paradigm shift out of the mutual annihilation scenario.