Quote from: cypherdoc on November 23, 2014, 08:42:37 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 23, 2014, 08:33:39 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 23, 2014, 08:30:46 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 23, 2014, 07:48:24 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 23, 2014, 07:43:04 PM

Quote from: Wilhelm on November 23, 2014, 07:21:22 PM

Why is BTC no longer BTC if the PoW changes? Why are ASICs securing the blockchain? Anyone running the Bitcoin client can process transactions you don't specifically need an ASIC. Before and after all coins are minted people will fight over either the blocks or the transaction fees no matter which PoW scheme is used. If everyone would stop using their ASICs the difficulty would go down and people could process transactions with their GPU or even CPU.

ASIC are securing blockchains in order to mine coins.

Absent BTC's massive advantage in network security provided by ASICs, it becomes just another crypto, subject to much more feasible 51% attacks.

Quote from: brg444 on November 23, 2014, 07:11:52 PM

There is no silver to BTC, no copper, no aluminum.

There is only one.

That's for the market to decide, not silly greenhorn noobs like you.

If you had been around longer, you'd realize your argument is exactly the same as what the Buttcoiners say about BTC ('It's a ponzi casino funny Monopoly money scam and the US dollar will be king forever').

No these are simply the rules of economics and the network effect of money/value.

Money substitutes existed because of physical limitations of traditional money, amongst other things.

Digital money has none of these limitations. I'm sorry for you if after so many more years than me looking at and investing in Bitcoin you still have not come to that conclusion.

There absolutely needs to be one ledger to rule them all. One to be trusted.

.

Yes, and that does not include SC's. At least how they're proposed.

Sidechains ledgers are derived from and can reconcile with the main ledger on the protocol level.

I thought we already agreed. They are different ledgers. Of course, 24 yo's can get dementia.

Different ledgers, whose units are derived and scarcity defined by Bitcoin. Sub-ledgers are an appropriate way to look at it. Or a tree of ledgers is another.

Either way, they use different models to "settle" with the mainchain and SPVP enables this "settlement" to be operated from within Bitcoin so that no external entities need to be trusted.

Bottom line is the 21,000,000 supply limit is respected and its distribution preserved so yes, sidechains can absolutely be apart of this one, main, ledger.

Quote from: satoshi on December 09, 2010, 10:46:50 PM

Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain