/biz/ - Business & Finance

Ok then

>>16105030
Wow retard thread. Time to go

>>16105397
Why is it retarded?

>>16105030
look up BTC second layer solutions. It's a hard problem, and some don't think it should even be resolved. Liquid and LN are second layer

>>16105030
See: extension block, Paul Sztorc. It's a good idea but BTC is captured by Jews who want to kill it so it's not going to happen.

>>16105030
Always apply game theory to any crypto ideas you have.

>Chain 1 would be the small block mining chain that creates BTC
Then no one would mine chain 2, no block reward, no incentive.

You could argue for transaction fees being a smaller incentive than block reward, but this would still mean chain 2's hashrate would be greatly lower than chain 1's.

This is a huge problem because:

>Chain 2 could be a large block transactional chain that the coins can be transferred to in order to use as a payment system

1. large blocks means it's more centralized. Just like how moneybutton's server was buckling under BSV's huge blocks and he supposedly couldn't afford the costs of keeping the node running at one point.
Only centralized servers can keep up.

2. Made even worse by having a lower hashrate due to disinterest due to lack of block rewards. This means it takes less hash power to gain 51% majority hash power, making it even MORE centralized.

3. remember when an unknown BCH miner stole all segwit outputs, the majority hash power BCH miners rolled back the chain and took the coins for themselves? Yeah... this means chain 2 lose the "uncensorability" of Bitcoin.

That VERY BAD as chain 2 is supposedly where real transactions occur. They can literally reject transactions they don't like (or blacklist addresses specified by the government etc).

4. Finally, how do separate chains even know that they are receiving real coins, not counterfeit ones? They have to validate that the UTXO is real, by checking the PoW hash of the block and all previous blocks. This means every mode has to have a copy of BOTH chain 1 and chain 2 anyway.

So only centralized servers can keep up, just like stated above with issues encountered by moneybutton's servers. You basically just made all nodes handle big blocks.

>>16105030
Or you could skip all the extra complications and just use BCH, which is what BTC would have been like if they didn't restrict the blocksize.

>>16105564
I know that chain 2 would be more centralized but that shouldn't be a big deal. You wouldn't hodl on that chain and it wouldn't crate any BTC through it's chain system.

>>16105564
No, the small block size node miners would just have to keep chain 1 and be able to verify chain 2.

>>16105576
True. I do use BCH. I was just thinking that if they did it right they could actually make it work but then again, they obviously just want it how it is. Liquid is obviously very similar but it is for larger groups such as exchanges. The groups leading btc are obviously handicapping it for the small users. Lightning should be liquid for the small users.