Quote from: ahu on April 12, 2014, 02:50:30 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on April 12, 2014, 05:37:27 AM

Quote from: smooth on April 12, 2014, 04:46:28 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on April 12, 2014, 03:11:27 AM

Blockchain 2.0 is based upon an economic fallacy of a 'scarcity race'

Can you explain why it is a fallacy.

It implies that only one 'coin' can be supported by the market and perpetuates the myth that bitcoin is money instead of realizing the bitcoins are shares in a company called Bitcoin and that these shares are being used as money. Gold does not stop being a metal just because it was used as money, and bitcoins don't stop being digital bearer shares just because they are being used as money. There can be many companies in the market and new startups will almost always demand fresh equity distribution based upon actual investment. Somehow I don't see Bitcoin shareholders investing in revolutionary ideas, instead I see them attempting to assert ownership over all ideas in this space forever with the same kind of threat that Microsoft makes which is to copy innovation and steal the rewards from the innovators.

The only thing I can understand the term 'scarcity race' to mean is the 'race to be most highly in demand'.... but the fallacy with the term is the assumption that it is a 'race' and 'winner take all' and this assumption is more revealing about the mindset and intent of the creators to monopolize the industry rather than support free market competition.

If I had to describe the BLockchain 2.0 proposal in terms of the DAC metaphor, then it represents the Core Developers & Miners intent to become the Microsoft of DACs promoting an inferior product built on top of an existing "monopoly" and threatening to copy the innovation of competitors and bundle it with Bitcoin.

Perhaps they should focus on cross-chain-trading and interoperability with others in the industry rather than attempting to build vendor lock-in and introduce barriers to entry.

The analogy fails. You can't compare a major established company to an experimental "crypto-corporation". There can't be such thing as vendor lock-in just yet. We'll see about that in 10 years or so.

The purported lack of innovation is irrelevant at this point. What's more important is to first fix the existing problems in the infrastructure like the lack of properly working exchanges. This proposal promises to fix at least some of the problems while still leveraging the existing infrastructure. I think this a great way to move forward. At least this is far better than creating yet another altcoin with questionable real-world advantages over bitcoin.

If you follow the work I have been doing you will see that I have gone so far beyond 'questionable real-world advantages' and instead have identified the core of what Bitcoin is. For starters if you use the analogy of a company Bitcoin has a meager revenue from transaction fees and large expenses by issuing new shares to pay for security. Thus, the company is in the red to the tune of $500M per year. It has 2 classes of stock (voting (hashpower) and capital (coins)) and thus separates the interest of these two parties, and it is slow.

I fix these problems by actually making crypto-companies that are profitable (they produce more value than they consume) and thus can pay dividends to the shareholders. I return power to the shareholders and the result is that the we have transactions that are as fast as Ripple, irreversibly secured by 51% shareholder vote before Bitcoin can produce 2 blocks. You see the analogy is critical to understand the benefits. These are tangible, real-world, advantages.

Nothing says Bitcoin cannot upgrade to Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) http://bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php and become profitable however. It seems to me that this should be a higher priority than side-chains.