Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 05:48:39 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 05, 2014, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 05, 2014, 05:28:48 PM

Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.

Unless that is the reason.

An inferior shitcoin will defeat the superior option of risk-averse 2wp?

Do you realise what you are saying here?

To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, Its my view that this is in debate when in fact it isnt.

Some considerations for MM SC:
Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Is it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SCs then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SCs?
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Is it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners wont be Bitcoin?
Is it possible that when Bitcoins block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason)

Now if you answered NO to any of the above you need to provide a rational expiation as to why it is not possible?
If the above came to pass, knowing the majority of a miners revenue is generated by a SC, who will have a profit motive to grow the Hashing power on the Bitcoin Blockchain to protect it?
Why would they want to protect it?

Imagine you got most of your revenues from one SC and someone made a new one and taking advantage of an innovation that your ASICs couldnt leverage (or you dont like the a rich guy who has a big stake in competing SC). You could take the profit from your SC mining, so sustain your business, and you could 51% attack the Bitcoin network to prevent defectors from leaving your profitable SC you could collude with other pools no need to kill Bitcoin you could just charge a 5BTC per kb transaction fee to process the transfes. (this doesnt add value nor is it innovation)

TL;DR I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, heres why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.