Quote from: brg444 on November 19, 2014, 10:51:44 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 19, 2014, 10:40:41 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 19, 2014, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 19, 2014, 10:02:19 PM

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for cent of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable prediction.

Miners don't need to mine sidechains in order to gain more revenue - it's just as viable to mine more transactions on the main chain.

If there's a demand for 1000 tps, the main chain should be allowed to satisfy that demand.

This gives the miners the revenue they need to wean themselves away from dependence on the block subsidy.

Miners must mine where ever the value is, it's not about where they get there revenue it's about how they get there Bitcoin, that is what protects the Bitcoin network.

SC's alow new mining incentives off the Bitcoin blockchain, transaction fees are inconsequential at the moment, but are intended to reduce to the marginal cost to secure the network in time.

Is this scenario possible, where miners by charging higher fees on the Bitcoin Blockchain, encourage users to use a better SideChaine for faster more cost effective transactions?

When that is 100% impossible my concerns will be put to rest. And Kevin Dowd can eat humble pie.

What incentive is there for the miners to encourage users to use a different chain for transactions? Serious question.

If a SideChain can do more tps, that would be an incentive.