Quote from: Adrian-x on November 16, 2014, 08:16:11 AM

Don't assume any high ground here.

You haven't corrected the nonsense reply to this post or addressed the concerns I raised here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9409835#msg9409835

You never replied to the questions asked of you here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9449317#msg9449317

So this is how you play heh... well here I go

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

Agreed.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network. The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Sounds good, moving on...

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

They don't secure the value? As long as miners MM the sidechain they absolutely do.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

Miners will not limit their reward to only one chain but an ecosystem of chain with value.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely. I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

"The most viable argument" is in fact a very good argument and so you cannot casually dismiss it by a non-argument stating that "you don't think that is a secure strategy".

Also consider this : what if we don't have sidechains and the value chain is actually a federated model scheme or a off-chain service.

Remember that the demand for convenience, utility and speed that is not implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain is very real and will only grow as BTC grows.

Then not only would the Bitcoin blockchain become less secure but the whole security and integrity of the system would be in danger as miners would have no more incentive to secure it (all the txs are processed through federation/oracles/offchain).

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

What if corpCOIN or paypalCOIN is created through a federated server? Is that not the same "attack vector".?

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

And with that we complete our loop and return to the argument that SPVproof does not introduce that risk.

Consider there are two existing suspects who are equally capable or disrupting Bitcoin's "greater liquidity" or "economic memory" :
-conventional off-chain schemes
-federated peg sidechains

Ask yourself what is the better way to preserve the ledger's integrity and its economic memory considering the eventual need for BTC to fulfill transactions types and applications that are not implementable on the core blockchain :

-Decentralized algorithmically pegged sidechains

or

-Proprietary off-chain schemes with considerable centralization risks
&
-Federation/oracles supported sidechains that could potentially revoke the miners claim at processing and profiting from tx fees

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 05, 2014, 08:24:07 PM

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?
Yes, as equally possible as an off-chain service or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could. Which is worse?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
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?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SCs?
Very likely
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?
Possible. But more likely that any chain supporting considerable value will be mined equally. Even more likely the chain with the most fees remain BTC's
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Same question, same answer
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?
Possible. But unlikely. Is it possible the chain with the most transactions (highest profit margin) is off-chain services or federated sidechain? If so which is worse?
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)
Very likely considering there will remain considerable amount of transactions on the original blockchain. Is it possible if this is not the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?

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?
Is it possible if this is the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?

Back at ya Wink