What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?

[CLains]

Someone bend the cause-effect space-time probability-cone to our advantage!

[liondani]

One idea for example for bitsharesX might be to try and 2-way-peg bitbtc as a sidechain to bitcoin and allow easy access from bitcoin to bitsharesX.

sounds brilliant!

[JoeyD]

I'm not saying we should stop developing profitable business ideas and give everything to patent trolls, but that does not mean we should adopt the patent troll modus operandi.

One idea for example for bitsharesX might be to try and 2-way-peg bitbtc as a sidechain to bitcoin and allow easy access from bitcoin to bitsharesX.

Just throwing some ideas out there, I think there must be ways to use this as a means for easier access to bitshares projects, lowering barriers to entry, instead of going the walled garden route, while still maintaining the business model and profiting from the network effect.

[Empirical1]

If this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.

Closed source is not an option any more, not in this space. The same argument about time and effort and giving to others could be made from bitcoin-holders perspective as well. You could argue that bitcoin bootstrapped the entire industry, so why should they not reap the benefits. I think that way of thinking is an uphill battle on a slippery slope.

Yeah, absolutely, I've been saying for ages new tech companies/innovations shouldn't really have shareholders who benefit, they should give most of their returns to Apple/Microsoft/Google shareholders 

I don't think it will work    If it is a challenge, I think people will close source for X period/X market size which will be unfortunate. (But new investors and communities will support that vs. making Bitcoin incumbents richer.)

[sumantso]

If this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.

Closed source is not an option any more, not in this space. The same argument about time and effort and giving to others could be made from bitcoin-holders perspective as well. You could argue that bitcoin bootstrapped the entire industry, so why should they not reap the benefits. I think that way of thinking is an uphill battle on a slippery slope.

I think energy would be better spent trying to use these developments to our advantage instead of trying to fight it. Maybe we can create an easy onramp to bitshares-DACs via these pegged-sidechains. With some creative thinking these developments could be beneficial to bitshares as much as to bitcoin holders.  Thinking big Bytemaster might come up with a sidechain exodus to more rational, decentralized and economical crypto-lands.

I am not suggesting thats what I3 should do; I am predicting thats what will going to happen in this crypto space.

[JoeyD]

If this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.

Closed source is not an option any more, not in this space. The same argument about time and effort and giving to others could be made from bitcoin-holders perspective as well. You could argue that bitcoin bootstrapped the entire industry, so why should they not reap the benefits. I think that way of thinking is an uphill battle on a slippery slope.

I think energy would be better spent trying to use these developments to our advantage instead of trying to fight it. Maybe we can create an easy onramp to bitshares-DACs via these pegged-sidechains. With some creative thinking these developments could be beneficial to bitshares as much as to bitcoin holders.  Thinking big Bytemaster might come up with a sidechain exodus to more rational, decentralized and economical crypto-lands.

[sumantso]

All in all I think I3 and Bitshares should add the btc-sidechains into their considerations for future (or even short term) projects. I know I3 associates itself with the virtual giants fighting knight, but even chivalrous idealists have to eat. If btc-sidechains can absorb our DACS it might be wise to be doing the absorbing ourselves and offer a more gradual and incentivized way out of bitcoins centralized mining. A bit of strategic and tactical readjustment might be advisable.

If this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.

[sumantso]

If the side chain business with 2 way movement really works out, I guess it can be implemented here too which would mean there won't be a different share unit for every different DAC. Who knows, if Bitshares can use the early mover advantage and get big, that unit may rival Bitcoin.

Btw, maaku seems to be one of the devs and is answering questions in the counterparty thready I posted earlier. Maybe I3 can poach him

Practical you mean it could be implemented on BTS blockchain with the andvantage of DPOS and not POW like BTC so it would be a really strong competitor...
The side effect  in this case(and not only) is that Bitshares-PTS will be uselles? Price of PTS will decline  so we the investors  will loose money? Am I missing something?

PTS can be the Bitcoin equivalent, or not. Maybe PTS, AGS and BTS XT will be combined into a single unit. Anyways, its not that important as by the time when it gets implemented (if ever), you will have got stake in several DACs from your PTS. You have to realise its a 'go big or go home' situation with I3 DACs. The price you are paying for paying for PTS/AGS should be a pittance when compared to the value you will receive.

[JoeyD]

First we'll have to wait and see if this can be done, but judging from the reddit posts by Dr. A. Back they are well past that point. He apparently organized a "Bitcoin mansion" with a lot of btc-devs to work out if it could be done. He also seems to be in discussion with a large number of mining-pool operators plus he already has massive funding partners. All in all I don't think it would be wise to bet against this getting implemented.

The reddit discussion also mentions that there is no limit to what type of sidechain can be pegged onto the bitcoin-main-chain even other POW/POS ones, but preferred merge-mining over inferior solutions like scrypt if you just want things like faster block-confirmations.

Closest analogy to I3 projects would be that bitcoin works like PTS, but without snapshots, so you can freely opt in or out of your stake anytime you want. The lag of getting BTC in and out of the sidechains is only required for liquidity and interchain btc-trading would probably be faster. To me this makes all alt-coins plus things like Ethereum in their current form irrelevant and Bitcoin into a giant Hydra of the crypto-space with transforming heads.

I share the concerns of Bytemaster around bitcoins mining centralization, however sidechains also offers an easy way out for bitcoin, as this essentially makes bitcoin entirely liquid and blockchain independent.

All in all I think I3 and Bitshares should add the btc-sidechains into their considerations for future (or even short term) projects. I know I3 associates itself with the virtual giants fighting knight, but even chivalrous idealists have to eat. If btc-sidechains can absorb our DACS it might be wise to be doing the absorbing ourselves and offer a more gradual and incentivized way out of bitcoins centralized mining. A bit of strategic and tactical readjustment might be advisable.

[gamey]

Blockchain 2.0 really kills any incentive for innovation for the sidechains.   I guess the market grows,  but by # of coins instead of value per coin.  All growth relative to fiat will be absorbed through btc.   Sha256 miners have to love this idea.

One thing that bytemaster pointed out as a killer is confirmation times.  It seems sidechains could be something akin to merge mined which could provide security that was tested and verified on sidechain side.  As far as confirmation times, I assume miners could be made to present POWs with lower diffs for sidechains to increase the confirmation rate.

Edit - The more I think about this, this is effectively a premine for any btc holders.  At the end of it, I don't see any big reason why anyone would ever create a sidechain ? Why not just stick with btc?  Either they create something cool but where the pegging can be manipulated, or it is just btc rebranded as an altcoin x 100. 

[liondani]

If the side chain business with 2 way movement really works out, I guess it can be implemented here too which would mean there won't be a different share unit for every different DAC. Who knows, if Bitshares can use the early mover advantage and get big, that unit may rival Bitcoin.

Btw, maaku seems to be one of the devs and is answering questions in the counterparty thready I posted earlier. Maybe I3 can poach him

Practical you mean it could be implemented on BTS blockchain with the andvantage of DPOS and not POW like BTC so it would be a really strong competitor...
The side effect  in this case(and not only) is that Bitshares-PTS will be uselles? Price of PTS will decline  so we the investors  will loose money? Am I missing something?

[fuzzy]

In effect btc mining pools would own the whole industry and decide which side chains live or die.   Such centralization will not be accepted by most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats a nightmare! And to be really honest I wouldn't be suprised if for some reason the "most" would accept such centralization at the "end"... because of GREED of course... give them money and you see how ethical barriers will collapse... YES I am not optimistic and all conspiracy theories come to my mind again... 

Are you related to me or something?

[CLains]

From coindesk, Bitcoin Core Developers Weigh in on Side Chain Proposal.

[sumantso]

If the side chain business with 2 way movement really works out, I guess it can be implemented here too which would mean there won't be a different share unit for every different DAC. Who knows, if Bitshares can use the early mover advantage and get big, that unit may rival Bitcoin.

Btw, maaku seems to be one of the devs and is answering questions in the counterparty thready I posted earlier. Maybe I3 can poach him

[bitbro]

As a beer snob I really like the metaphor.  Seems we will be the Sam Adams of the crypto market


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk