Quote from: Adrian-x on November 19, 2014, 06:02:37 PM

Quote from: sickpig on November 19, 2014, 11:14:35 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 19, 2014, 11:07:07 AM

Quote from: Dabs on November 19, 2014, 06:49:58 AM

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

True up to a point.
After which it doesn't.

it depends on what will substitute bitcoin, after such a "point".
if it's a better bitcoin I'm all for it. I guess we won't know
until it will happen.

if you have understood cypers arguments it doesn't have to be a better Bitcoin, and if your understood the adjustment in the incentive dynamic one can make it look better for the user and the miners, however there are tradeoffs, many here will dismiss them as inconsequential, but the biggest one for me is environmental impact on running this decentralize world, and this conversation hasn't even filtered through to that level yet or (mainly the expertise aren't here, and most Liberians like to marginalize it to the outskirts of the free market.

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?