Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Bitcoin hypotetical  (Read 451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bitbro

  • Guest
Bitcoin hypotetical
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:29:54 PM »

If bitcoin can switch to pos or dpos and implement 2sided pegging, they will consume the industry. 

It seems with blockchain 2.0 the need for change has been realized. 

Is anyone else feeling the same way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2014, 12:02:01 AM »
When you are that big (and the biggest by far) the need to change is hard to see. What is almost impossible to do is to actually change…
So, if I have to bet one of two highly unlikely scenarios - I will bet Dan implementing direct (and one for one) BTC to bitBTC exchange in some of the BTS X/ME family before Bitcoin going to POS…
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

bitbro

  • Guest
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2014, 12:18:16 AM »
You're saying we might honor all of BTC?

Might just work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2014, 12:24:50 AM »
Oh my goodness. That is one heck of an interesting idea. I'm not sure I'd want all Bitcoin holders in all of these DACs, but air-dropping a stake to all BTC holders is an experiment I would love to see with one of these DACs or DAC families. Talk about viral marketing.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2014, 12:42:45 AM »
You're saying we might honor all of BTC?

Might just work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How  should I put this – from 2 unlikely developments I find this one more likely (in the order of 5*10^-3 to 5*10^-4)

Oh my goodness. That is one heck of an interesting idea. I'm not sure I'd want all Bitcoin holders in all of these DACs, but air-dropping a stake to all BTC holders is an experiment I would love to see with one of these DACs or DAC families. Talk about viral marketing.

That is really great!!!
But if I was Dan I would choose other forms of self-destructing my own interest if I can help it.

I decided to edit this post and to make something clear(er):
1. 1 BTC to 1 BitBTC protocol/exchange will achieve 2 indisputably great things (Bitcoin 2.0 – i.e. 2-way pegged parallel chain, and POS for said/parallel/unparalleled chain)

2. What will it do for the developers will be - unknown amount of work put in implementing an idea that results in total devaluation of all of their shares by BTC holders…
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 01:37:09 AM by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2014, 02:19:55 AM »
Would the Blockchain 2.0 developers sell their Bitcoin if another organisation offered them all the functional advantages of Bitcoin without the ability to particpate in the future success/failure of Bitcoin? If the answer is no, why do they think the majority will choose to be a users of a Bitcoin-linked-blockchain when they can be a user-owners of a competing blockchain?

Imo, Blockchain 2.0 will remove the 'owner' incentive to participate in Bitcoin-linked-blockchains because the beneficiary of any increase in value created by the linked-blockchains popularity will be distributed among Bitcoin as a whole. Therefore as a Bitcoin holder the most EV approach would be not to take any unnecessary risk yourself in supporting Bitcoin-linked-blockchains. (Because you'll benefit just as much as people who do take the risk.) You'd only use them if the advantages were extremely compelling to you as a pure user.

So despite having the network effect of Bitcoin, any new Bitcoin-linked-Blockchain will not be supported by the network only by the market segment that actually needs to use it. (But again why would the majority of even that segment choose to be just be a user when they can be user-owner on a separate blockchain.)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 07:44:16 AM by Empirical1 »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2014, 10:19:01 AM »
I am not sure whether Dan's plan to reform Bitcoin which in combination with that Bitcoin 2.0 proposal will make III powered projects less necessary and less valuable are so beneficial for III/AGS/PTS. Marketing would be an argument but I am not sure whether this weights out the cons...

Offline luckybit

Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2014, 10:31:54 PM »
If bitcoin can switch to pos or dpos and implement 2sided pegging, they will consume the industry. 

It seems with blockchain 2.0 the need for change has been realized. 

Is anyone else feeling the same way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a fact that they will consume the industry. Not everyone likes Bitcoin.

How many people had their Bitcoins stolen, hacked, or saw all the negative propaganda about Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is just a brand and nothing more. The technology isn't as good at Bitshares. The side chain technology is a desperate attempt to protect the Bitcoin brand for the benefit of people who have businesses which depend on SHA-256.

The rest of us don't really have to care which brand wins because the technology is more important. The people who end up using this technology might not even use it as Bitcoin. It might just be built into their browser under some other name and with a new blockchain entirely.

So altcoins aren't going away and in my opinion shouldn't. If you want maximum adoption then you want altcoins. If you want maximum decentralization then Bitcoin either has to move from SHA-256 or you're going to have a very centralized central Bitcoin infrastructure which everything depends on.

I think that is a stupid move, especially after heartbleed. The one good thing about having many coins is similar to having many Linux distros. Not everyone is going to want the same brand because in some places Bitcoin as a brand just isn't going to catch on. Everyone wants the best technology though, and if you do that right you don't have to care about the brand anymore.

Let's focus on technology and utility. If you have 10 different chains which all have better technology this is more important than if you have just a few chains doing everything all developed by the same core developers.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 10:34:07 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: Bitcoin hypotetical
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2014, 10:39:38 PM »
Therefore as a Bitcoin holder the most EV approach would be not to take any unnecessary risk yourself in supporting Bitcoin-linked-blockchains. (Because you'll benefit just as much as people who do take the risk.) You'd only use them if the advantages were extremely compelling to you as a pure user.

So despite having the network effect of Bitcoin, any new Bitcoin-linked-Blockchain will not be supported by the network only by the market segment that actually needs to use it. (But again why would the majority of even that segment choose to be just be a user when they can be user-owner on a separate blockchain.)

This is an excellent point that I agree with. The main problem I see is that there will be a lot less owners if everything is centralized around Bitcoin infrastructure.

I just don't see it playing out the way they think it will. People say Bitcoins are too expensive and that they don't want to make early adopters rich. Trying to force people to interact with Bitcoin is not the way to promote crypto-equity. Giving people the chance to try to recreate Bitcoin to me seems to be what is driving the industry right now.

People like altcoins because they have a chance to own something, build something, and be rewarded for it. In the process of doing this people develop the skills and expertise to become developers in the industry.

Where are the developers going to get their chance if there is no potential to profit from making altcoins? Will it lead to VCs and corporations making altcoins in secret? Will it lead to patents?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+