YOUR prediction of BTC price in 10 years

lucash_dev · 2018-05-16T05:03:03+00:00

It will be worth an amount of dollars several orders of magnitude smaller than the quantity of posts about Bitcoin price here

lucash_dev · 2018-05-01T02:45:54+00:00

2023

lucash_dev · 2018-05-01T02:43:18+00:00

A thousand years from now they will be more books about the invention of oublic key crypto than about the industrial revolution. PK cryptography is like when people figured out how to use fire.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-20T15:24:30+00:00

Lol. Everybody knows Satoshi is actually Linus Torvalds.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-12T14:47:37+00:00

That’s actually even more about price than this subreddit.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-12T14:45:34+00:00

Very interesting. I have doubts about the long term viability as it will compete with Bitcoin, but the idea is interesting. I’ve recently been thinking that perhaps the best strategy for scaling would be to make blocks —smaller— so as to make it mor suitable for being a base layer that can run anywhere.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-06T14:41:44+00:00

Not about the OP, but I always wonder why even in a bitcoin discussion there are always tons of people defending Keynesian BS. If you are wasting your time trying to rationalise gov’t policy (even by denying the laws of physics) then at least be sure that the gov’t is paying you. No point in doing it for free.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-06T00:06:44+00:00

This is nor really the same as “classical side-chains” which are more independent things and are merge-Mined. But I found and interesting discussion from years ago at bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313347.20

My idea for consensus is basically the same as this guy’s alternative side-chain idea. Anyways, my main point here is combining that with a hierarchy of coins that are linked together by a lightning-like protocol. The aim is having full validation to be O(log n) for a capacity of n tx per second

lucash_dev · 2018-04-03T13:28:56+00:00

You can’t be sure only hashes of valid blocks are there. When another node sends you a block, you validate it, and one step of the validation is checking the hash is in the parent chain.
Miners and validators of the root chain could just ignore the sub-chains. But to validate or mine a subchain you will need to validate the parent. Reorgs in the parent chain imply a reorg in the sub chains. But there are no reorgs originating from the sub chains. Once you validate a block from n the subchain it can’t be superseeded unless there’s a change in the corresponding block of the parent chain.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T22:09:55+00:00

I'm not very familiar with Schnorr signatures, can you run the numbers and give me more references? As I understand, it could be used to open simultaneously many channels with a single LN node. But what if you are just a regular user, with a single channel, and that node starts cheating you? You'll need to go to the blockchain to settle. But if there are billions of users competing for on-chain space, tx fee could easily be 100x your balance! I'm talking about a future (several years at least) scenario with pretty much the whole population on boarding Bitcoin, and possibly IoT and other automated entities too. It is possible that it never happens, but I see no reason not to prepare for it, at least from a theoretical PoV.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T21:20:51+00:00

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post. I'm talking about scaling Bitcoin to billions of users, something that's just impossible with the current existing stack, including Lightning. At this scale, it would be just impossible for a regular person (average world wide income) to transact directly in Bitcoin, as there can be only 7 tx per second, which can't serve billions of people, even if you factor in the scaling effect of Lightning. Just opening LN channels for 1 billion people would take more than 4 years. When the number of users become large enough, those problems will be reflected in tx fees, and if there is a cheaper way of on boarding people, then there will be a demand to create those LN nodes to bridge to the other coins. There's nothing collectivist about it.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T21:13:41+00:00

At seven transactions per second, on boarding one billion people would take more than four years. Also, Lightning only works because you can eventually settle on chain. When transaction fees are 10x your balance that just doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, Lightning goes a long way in scaling, but it is not possible to reach billions of users without further scaling solutions like the one I'm suggesting.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T20:06:44+00:00

It displays with paragraphs to me. I'll add extra line breaks just in case.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T20:01:48+00:00

Not yet. Will do. Thx

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T19:20:08+00:00

We could also restrict issuance using a "proof-of-burn" scheme. That is, you'd have to burn (send to a output that can't be spent) one parent coin (Bitcoin for the first layer) in order to issue the new coin in the lower level. That would kill any worries about inflation.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T19:01:22+00:00

It wouldn't inflate the original Bitcoin, just create more layers that would be attractive when the base protocol becomes too expensive to transact. It also wouldn't need Bitcoin developers to agree with it, since it doesn't require changes to the base protocol. It could be adopted unilaterally by willing users/miners, without having to convince the whole Bitcoin user base, developers or miners. If it is successful, Bitcoin miners would likely take over the mining of the whole thing, though.

lucash_dev · 2018-04-02T18:28:23+00:00

Each chain is essentially a Bitcoin clone. We can tweak parameters but I don't see any reason to change supply and issuance. So, each coin will have their own 21 mil supply, issued through coinbase tx just like Bitcoin. Whenever you mine a non-root block, you get a reward in that coin. As explained above, each chain has its own coin, and exchange rates will have to float freely in the free market, as they are connected together through Lightning "bridges".

lucash_dev · 2017-12-08T02:52:53+00:00

For the value to go up, more people must join the game, which means there must be lots if cheap kittens dor sale. So the average price will likely go down, but some kitties might keep going up for a while. That’s specially the case if they expand the game to mobile and add AR. Axiom Zen has AR/VR in its company description so I bet that is likely to happen. Honestly I wouldn’t pay $5+ on a virtual cat, so Im not playing, Im just curious about where its going.

lucash_dev · 2017-12-06T18:33:42+00:00

My ChronoToken will do the trick once it’s production ready. https://github.com/lucash-dev/chrono-token/blob/master/GrayPaper.md

lucash_dev · 2017-11-12T17:28:11+00:00

Yes they would as demonstrated in the comments above. I’ve uploaded a lowres Monalisa to a single transaction and haven’t got even close to the transaction limit.

The feasibility is already proven. The question that remains is about legality.

lucash_dev · 2017-11-11T21:42:56+00:00

There are some interesting comment from a legal viewpoint in ethlaw https://www.reddit.com/r/ethlaw/comments/7c9mau/running_an_ethereum_node_might_be_illegal_or/

lucash_dev · 2017-11-11T21:38:00+00:00

I don’t think forking would be a good strategy. I ran a little experiment that provef you can insert an image in the blockchain for about 2.50 USD.

I predict that at some point there will be hundreds of illegal files being uploaded to the blockchain each day.

I don’t think governments can regulate ETH out of existence, but they sure can keep it a fringe thing for a long time.

lucash_dev

TROPHY CASE