Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 04:20:57 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 03:35:22 PM

to build centralized systems upon a decentralized system, but not the other way around

It depends what do you mean by "centralized" and "decentralized". I can imagine a scenario, where all coins would flow inside the Lightning Network, then all on-chain transaction fees could be gone, and then guess, what will happen next: you will have a system that will run out of coins. Miners will mine all 21 million coins in circulation, and what then? No new coins, so the basic block reward would be zero. And then imagine that all coins could be locked in some LN channels, and stay there. If so, then miners will stop mining (because of no incentive), and then the whole chain will stop, because the whole life will be present entirely in some lower layers.

By the way.. I fixed your quotes to reference that you were responding to different members within your above post.

Well it seems to me that I was attempting to get some clarification from you regarding how you consider the various kinds of intermixing of POW and POS systems, so in that regard I presented my own understanding that there may well be all kinds of variations of systems that might have higher up layer levels that end up being built and then functioning on bitcoin's POW base layer.. and yeah, I am presuming lightning network to be one of those.

Perhaps, I am not smart enough, but your response did not really clarify much if anything for me, except to show me that you believe that some kind of pie in the sky gravitation of value from BTC's base layer to another layer (lightning in this example) could cause bitcoin's base layer to no longer have the correct kinds of incentives to preserve itself.

Your scenario seems to be nothing that is currently in front of us nor some kind of dynamic that we can really see in our current bitcoin dynamics (as far as I understand) and it does not seem to be any kind of phenomena that appears to pending as likely to be happening or to happen, but still you want to present such a scenario as if it were a current serious consideration that we need to ponder about.

It seems to me that a lot of fringe "what about" hypotheticals come to bitcoin discussions, and they have about a snowballs chance in hell of happening, but we are supposed to seriously consider them?

I would imagine that your theory could take 100 or so years to play out, no? Do you believe that we might see such set of dynamics coming in advance or should we worry that whatever is happening in bitcoin needs to be fixed right now in order to stop such an inevitability? would there not be any way to stop it once we see it, or is it already too late? Perhaps, we need to discontinue all work on lightning network in order to discourage second layer gravitation of value towards? Oh gawd.. Roll Eyes

Maybe I am missing something, and this theory is not as fringe as your seemingly melodramatic description is making it out to be?
Cheesy

Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 04:20:57 PM

So far, the Bitcoin community has no solution for the scenario, when the basic block reward would be zero.

Yes.. that is about 110 to 120 years into the future. Sure, we need to plan ahead, but I doubt that your assertion that no solution has been found is even accurate. It's not like a solution has to be found for every single hair brained theory when we do not even know if the facts are going to evolve into that direction... Makes no sense to have a solution ready for every single possible problem that could happen. In other words, there seems to be sufficient and adequate evidence that whatever is happening in bitcoinlandia at this time, is a sufficient and adequate balance of what is perfect (or good enough. .or whatever other qualifier that might fit here) for now and sufficiently and adequately balanced for a variety (if not an overwhelming majority of likely and unlikely scenarios) of future scenarios.

Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 04:20:57 PM

Then, doing chain reorganization would be profitable, just to get some coins from the fees of the previous block. That means, this could be the way to disincentivize miners to extend the Proof of Work chain. And then, if no solution will appear, everything will be handled by the Proof of Stake.

Again.. pie in the sky about a situation that does not currently exist or even look like it is starting to move in a direction of existing in the future.

Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 04:20:57 PM

Quote from: tadamichi on Today at 03:52:59 PM

Are there any downsides/benefits in doing that? Im just getting into how exactly lightning works at the moment and didn’t go into merged mining yet. Does someone have any good resources to catch up?

It is just an idea. If Merged Mining is possible, then something that I described, could be named "Merged Signing", so it is exactly "a scenario in which miners would vote out their own business model", because then it is possible to vote for anything, just by signing some transaction, and it is possible to prefer that, instead of using Proof of Work to mine blocks. You can always sign a transaction, and then it goes into staking. If you will look inside the Lightning Network, you will see, that there is no mining. So, how to name that consensus, that is inside that network? I would call that staking, because everyone can open a channel, and put all coins at stake, and then take profits from keeping some node online, and signing messages. There is only one difference: it is running on top of the regular Proof of Work chain. But I think it could change, I described the reasons above.

When it comes to the resources about Merged Mining, then see how the NameCoin works. And imagine that instead of reusing some Proof of Work from another chain, you could reuse a signature. Then you will get, how Merged Mining could work in a Proof of Stake consensus.

Well, I am glad that you have a solution. .. not that I understand it, exactly.. But maybe it addresses the potential problem that you had outlined, so then your assertion that no solution exists has been resolved, with a possible solution? perhaps?

To your knowledge is there anyone working on a BIP in regards to your proposed solution or does a BIP already exist?