... there will be many opportunities for DPoS chains to merge with altcoinsAnd all of us can be happy .. because we will have the first-mover-advantage here
we already have our first merging happening in just a few weeks from now
In April I promoted the idea to merge. I did not expect Bytemaster to merge Bitshares DACs but it seems the intention is the same. Consolidation of resources and marketing.
When you create new stakeholders who would have been competitors it's how you win. Governments do this, large corporations do this, because it is effective. I just wish more time was given to discuss this so that consensus could have formed neatly. The process was disordered and rushed.
I think third party DAC developers need to develop a formal process for doing mergers. Maybe also generate some philosophical and technical framework so people know the tools they have for doing mergers. Bytemaster, Stan and others should discuss what tools we have and promote development in the Bitshares toolkit of features to make formal mergers a smooth process.
I dont htink its totally worked out.. Peter Todd is still skeptical about the 2 way peg between the chains and how a 51% attack on the smaller sidechain can cause an attack on the main chain, thus giving incentive to attack a small chain at the to be able to gain access to the main chain (this is what I got from the quick read on reddit).
Suddenly Merge-mining never looked better for POW alts.
I think it is a significant threat because they have a lot of brain power and resources to keep grinding at it until it becomes a threat. It's their first whitepaper and you can be sure it will be revised until it does threaten the whole altcoin industry.
The altcoin industry is going to have to consolidate at some point. Crypto mergers is how consolidation will happen.
DPOS side chains are how we plan on scaling BTS.
Our benefit is that the same delegates can sign all chains.
This method is still dependent upon miners and side chains that use POW... it defines POW as a Dynamic Membership Multi-Party Signature and relies on SPV client validation rules and atomic cross chain trading.
Not really a threat in my opinion.
Interesting. What are DPoS side chains? can you describe this because this is the first I'm hearing of that. I think it's great if you have something planned.
I still think they are a threat not because of their specific plan or technical idea but because they have a lot of brain power combined with financial resources. They have the ability to actually implement their ideas while in our community maybe only you have the ability to implement DPoS side chains.
So could someone create a BitUSD sidechain for Bitcoin? Could a DPOS variant plug into Bitcoin?
That's the trillion dollar question, IMO.
Without yet reading or comprehending the significance of this - I would like to know if this pretty much simplifies the debate down to what we knew was coming:
PoW vs DPoS?
I think we need to re-open that debate. I'm still in favor of DPoS because it's a more efficient design but I think even if PoW is less efficient there are enough developers who will spend many many hours doing whatever they can to save PoW. Side chains to me seem like an overly complex solution which further centralizes not just mining but developer talent as well because so few people know how side chains work.
Tree chains are no better because so few people know how that works. These are exotic solutions which might work but which are very hard to explain.
I think we need at some point to make it known to the community what sort of tools DPoS chains have at their disposal. We also need to know that there is a long term strategy to maintain competitive and innovative advantages of DPoS chains. These advantages can be maintained by technical, political or marketing mechanisms.