Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 04, 2014, 06:22:32 PM

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on December 04, 2014, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 04, 2014, 06:01:17 PM

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on December 04, 2014, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 04, 2014, 04:55:42 PM

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on December 04, 2014, 03:25:45 PM

I am clearly writing about how to move more capital into the coin without necessarily increasing the price.

Why on God's green earth wouldn't we want the price to increase as the market cap grows?

The $200 trillion looking for a home as detailed in the article linked from the first line of the OP.

You will never scale that much capital into Bitcoin if the price has to go to $10 million. We couldn't even make past $10 billion market cap and $1000 price without bubble exhale. Excruciatingly too slow, you are talking about decades, and that capital needs a home next year.

As an investor in Bitcoin, I don't give a fat fiddler's fuck about central banks
and what they need to do with their money next year.

I WANT the price of Bitcoin to increase.

Yeah and that is why you may lose market share to a more astute coin which understands that price isn't the only metric of success.

Derivatives are a secondary market which doesn't have to do with protocol of the coin.

My idea on how to do the programmable block chain.

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on December 03, 2014, 09:39:58 PM

Hope it is not too late to get some feedback on my thoughts.

My take away from the upthread is consistent with my own analysiscentralization of pools is probably positively correlated with required computation (above some threshold).

The Ethereum applications seem important and reasonably decentralized.

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#applications

So pray tell me why it isn't superior to have merge-mined chains for new contract types (as we think of them) and optimize those chains rather than a generalized VM on one block chain?

Advantages are:

Centralization is granular per contract type.
Mining participation is optional, thus chains can compete instead of the swallowing the universe entropy(state) = O(∞)
Failure modes are more contained.
Incremental development and optimization.
Market-based instead of top-down metrics (e.g. Ethereum's gas fees) as chains compete to reward miners.

Etc.

Maybe we need to make the process of starting and publicizing a merge-mined chain easier? Do we need an app store of merged-mined chains?

P.S. Apologies in advance if one post can evaporate a $36 million market cap.

Edit: even if you did want a generalized VM for those contracts which don't have enough economy-of-scale to be their own merge-mined chain, you could make that chain merged-mined. You could make variants and let the market decide which one is the winner. Perhaps Ethereum should do this, if they are not satisfied with the Bitcoin mining structure.