Quote from: cypherdoc on November 15, 2014, 12:14:38 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 15, 2014, 12:08:32 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 11:33:47 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 11:20:49 PM

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.

you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.

Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.

BlockStream have a win win proposition for miners, and for the community who fall for brg444 propaganda, I only hope Start ups like that go through the same stages as miners buying late First Gen ASIC's - (that money would have been better spent just buying Bitcoin) I hope that $15 Million investment would have been better spent on BTC, than trying to change the prototypical.