I don't pretend to know how sidechains work. However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?
But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD. Which is it? One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense. As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about.
In your proposal, transactions go to a chain based the addresses involved.We can reasonably assume that different people's wallet will tend to be
distributed uniformly over several sidechains to hold their transactions (if they're not, there is no scaling benefit anyway...). That means that
for an average transaction, you will need a cross-chain transfer in order to get the money to the recipient (as their wallet will usually be
associated to a chain that is different from your own). Either you use an atomic swap (which actually means you end up briefly with coins in the destination chain, and require multiple transactions and a medium delay), or you use the 2way peg transfer mechanism (which is very slow, and reduces the security the recipient has to SPV).
Whatever you do, the result will be that most transactions are:
* Slower (a bit, or a lot, depending on what mechanism you use).
* More complex, with more failure modes.
* Require more and larger transactions (causing a total net extra load on all verifiers together).
And either:
* Less secure (because you rely on a third party to do an atomic swap with,
or because of the 2 way peg transfer mechanism which has SPV security)
* Doesn't offer any scaling benefit (because the recipient needs to fully
validate both his own and the receiver chain).
In short, you have not added any scaling at all, or reduced the security of the system significantly, as well as made it significantly less convenient
to use.
So no, sidechains are not a direct means for solving any of the scaling problems Bitcoin has. What they offer is a mechanism for easier experimentation, so that new technology can be built and tested without needing to introduce a new currency first (with the related speculative and network effect problems). That experimentation could eventually lead us to discover mechanisms for better scaling, or for more scalability/security tradeoffs (see for example the Witness Segregation that Elements Alpha has).
--
Pieter
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008617.html |
|
|
|
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work. However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?
But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD. Which is it? |
|
|
|
I really doubt this is the last of the disagreements devs will face when it comes to forking bitcoin soft or hard, there is clearly a demand for this "voting system"; already something like it has manifested itself in a half baked manner. see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0there no question development would benefit from being able to poll the network, and i believe everyone would appreciate being asked to vote. here are a few thoughts about the details that might make this process more streamlined: by default when a new set of BIPs are set up for voting, mining a block without making any change to the version number would indicate undecided or not voting, same would go for the BTC, and this hashing power / BTC would not be tallied on the pie charts. we could assume undecided votes would side with the voting majority. all voting would have the option "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" when a BIP is modified all votes for that BIP go back to undecided, a new version number / BTC address will be attributed to this modified BIP. when consuseus appears to have been reached, devs are free to fork( soft or hard ) the software despite any disagreement they may still have internally ( this is in fact always possible, it would simply be more socially acceptable to fork to something the network is in full agreement with even tho some devs don't like it. ) to encourage consensus building, BIPs with the lowest approval rating would be periodically knocked off, and all its votes setback to undecided. included the possibility of knocking off "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" in which case it would become clear that SOME KIND of change is deemed necessary by all those voting. Adam. If you would have followed the dev list at all in the last year you would have realized a plethora of similar proposition have been suggested and would always be rejected with a consensual NACK for many obvious reasons. There is essentially no practical way to identify, qualify & quantify users in the network so as to "weight" their "votes". hashing power And amount of BTC ?? when someone uses a 50BTC wallet to send 0.001BTC to an address associated with voting for BIPXXX add 50votes the to economic majority pie chart when blocks are minted with a version associated with voting for BIPXXX add it to the Hashing power pie chart easy as pie. its happening one way or the other.... why fight it? As gool ol Romanian chap Mircea would say : read the logs. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/and i'd tell him to look around. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0people want this, why not its a pie chart!! who doesn't like pie charts  "The people want this"  I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I thought Bitcoin was exactly about putting a check on unreasonable people demand. Guess that was underestimating "the people" |
|
|
|
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it I didn't bother reading this thread at all.
Let me just say:
Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit). But, please... explain. How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?  Can you read? Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.
What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is. Can you read? I asked you explain it. If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument. Are you posting to hear yourself type? Or you want to influence opinion? If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position. Me, I'm interested in the truth. If you show me where I've been wrong, perhaps I'll take your side. Proofs? What proofs? I have no idea what you're talking about. When a user uses a sidechain it requires a transaction to a special output. A script is involved in the transaction so as to make the validation between chain. The SPV proof. These proofs/transactions are sometimes considerably larger than regular transactions. Currently they are researching advanced cryptographic methods so as to reduce the size of these proofs given existing block space constrain. Raising the block size could significantly accelerate the deployment of the actual model of sidechains by delaying the eventual need for very efficient proofs. |
|
|
|
There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.
It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks. Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
|
|
|
|
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it I didn't bother reading this thread at all.
Let me just say:
Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit). But, please... explain. How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks? Can you read? Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.
What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is. |
|
|
|
I really doubt this is the last of the disagreements devs will face when it comes to forking bitcoin soft or hard, there is clearly a demand for this "voting system"; already something like it has manifested itself in a half baked manner. see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0there no question development would benefit from being able to poll the network, and i believe everyone would appreciate being asked to vote. here are a few thoughts about the details that might make this process more streamlined: by default when a new set of BIPs are set up for voting, mining a block without making any change to the version number would indicate undecided or not voting, same would go for the BTC, and this hashing power / BTC would not be tallied on the pie charts. we could assume undecided votes would side with the voting majority. all voting would have the option "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" when a BIP is modified all votes for that BIP go back to undecided, a new version number / BTC address will be attributed to this modified BIP. when consuseus appears to have been reached, devs are free to fork( soft or hard ) the software despite any disagreement they may still have internally ( this is in fact always possible, it would simply be more socially acceptable to fork to something the network is in full agreement with even tho some devs don't like it. ) to encourage consensus building, BIPs with the lowest approval rating would be periodically knocked off, and all its votes setback to undecided. included the possibility of knocking off "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" in which case it would become clear that SOME KIND of change is deemed necessary by all those voting. Adam. If you would have followed the dev list at all in the last year you would have realized a plethora of similar proposition have been suggested and would always be rejected with a consensual NACK for many obvious reasons. There is essentially no practical way to identify, qualify & quantify users in the network so as to "weight" their "votes". hashing power And amount of BTC ?? when someone uses a 50BTC wallet to send 0.001BTC to an address associated with voting for BIPXXX add 50votes the to economic majority pie chart when blocks are minted with a version associated with voting for BIPXXX add it to the Hashing power pie chart easy as pie. its happening one way or the other.... why fight it? As gool ol Romanian chap Mircea would say : read the logs. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/ |
|
|
|
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it I didn't bother reading this thread at all.
Let me just say:
Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
|
|
|
|
Might as well just copy/paste All part of the little coordinated XT push. A good cop/bad cop trap for suckers to fall in. Unscrupulous lobbying of VC-backed companies willing to throw a bone to the investors for more funding rounds. "Look Mr. Banker, we just upgraded the Bitcoin network to support 8X more transactions, that should get us some users! You all know Bitcoin users LOVE to make transactions right, right?" Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. Where is the research? Can we see the "tests"? Can't these industry "leaders" wait until the actual industry has met for a final push to a resolution (Scaling Bitcoin) until picking sides? Speaking of "ivory tower" what use should we, the community, make of this pathetic PR coup? Are we supposed to just swallow this and take it for granted these guys have done their research? Of course we shouldn't shame them with our suspicion or any reconsideration or validation of their actual motivations and reasoning. These are the bankers of the Bitcoin world and you are sucking up them without any discretion because...they're VCs & entrepreneurs so they must know what they're doing and surely what they are doing is for the best of everyone in Bitcoin, right. Right? |
|
|
|
|
I didn't bother reading this thread at all.
Let me just say:
Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
|
|
|
|
I really doubt this is the last of the disagreements devs will face when it comes to forking bitcoin soft or hard, there is clearly a demand for this "voting system"; already something like it has manifested itself in a half baked manner. see : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160026.0there no question development would benefit from being able to poll the network, and i believe everyone would appreciate being asked to vote. here are a few thoughts about the details that might make this process more streamlined: by default when a new set of BIPs are set up for voting, mining a block without making any change to the version number would indicate undecided or not voting, same would go for the BTC, and this hashing power / BTC would not be tallied on the pie charts. we could assume undecided votes would side with the voting majority. all voting would have the option "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" when a BIP is modified all votes for that BIP go back to undecided, a new version number / BTC address will be attributed to this modified BIP. when consuseus appears to have been reached, devs are free to fork( soft or hard ) the software despite any disagreement they may still have internally ( this is in fact always possible, it would simply be more socially acceptable to fork to something the network is in full agreement with even tho some devs don't like it. ) to encourage consensus building, BIPs with the lowest approval rating would be periodically knocked off, and all its votes setback to undecided. included the possibility of knocking off "none of the BIPs are acceptable, therefore there should be no change" in which case it would become clear that SOME KIND of change is deemed necessary by all those voting. Adam. If you would have followed the dev list at all in the last year you would have realized a plethora of similar proposition have been suggested and would always be rejected with a consensual NACK for many obvious reasons. There is essentially no practical way to identify, qualify & quantify users in the network so as to "weight" their "votes". |
|
|
|
That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support
Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below.  Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it. 14% of the nodes are buying it as of today. That's up from 0% a little over a week ago. Let's see how much of the hash power is buying it two months from now...  This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies. Personally, I don't care whether they run XT or a BIP101 patch for Core---their commitment to implement BIP101-support by December is a big step towards consensus. ... Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdfAll part of the little coordinated XT push. A good cop/bad cop trap for suckers to fall in. Unscrupulous lobbying of VC-backed companies willing to throw a bone to the investors for more funding rounds. "Look Mr. Banker, we just upgraded the Bitcoin network to support 8X more transactions, that should get us some users! You all know Bitcoin users LOVE to make transactions right, right?" Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. Where is the research? Can we see the "tests"? Can't these industry "leaders" wait until the actual industry has met for a final push to a resolution (Scaling Bitcoin) until picking sides? Speaking of "ivory tower" what use should we, the community, make of this pathetic PR coup? Are we supposed to just swallow this and take it for granted these guys have done their research? Of course we shouldn't shame them with our suspicion or any reconsideration or validation of their actual motivations and reasoning. These are the bankers of the Bitcoin world and you are sucking up them without any discretion because...they're VCs & entrepreneurs so they must know what they're doing and surely what they are doing is for the best of everyone in Bitcoin, right. Right? |
|
|
|
Next leg down is coming. Now we will see who is a real believer and who is a pussy...
Preparing to buy for first time in a while |
|
|
|
My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service. And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig. Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then. A what now? I won't bother arguing with you until you understand or have read the white paper. My "escrow" comment was a shortcut for your small brain to grasp. Concentrate on SPV Proof. Until then. Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance"
|
|
|
|
"What's wrong with voting?
The OP is not proposing "voting" in the normal sense. He is proposing that we simply make it very easy for node operators to download either BIP101, BIP100, 1-MB, etc. If, for example, the majority of the hash power gets on board with larger blocks, then that's what Bitcoin will become. He wants to give more power to the node operators (rather than to the developers of a particular implementation of the protocol (Core)). Peter what you a proposing would more likely than not shatter bitcoin into a multitude a blockchain secured by fractions of hashing power. Your only hope is that somehow "free market" would eventually lead to a consensus, not before the network is broken to pieces by catastrophic consensus failure. Here is what you actually propose to people is a "conservative choice": The reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks. There are very good reasons why most of the core developers and Bitcoin experts are super cautious with increasing the block size too quickly. But these reasons are hard to explain to regular users of Bitcoin. Yet, it is quite easy for Mike & Gavin to convince people that supporting BitcoinXT means supporting block size increase, which makes Bitcoin scale for worldwide use, and it's what Satoshi intended. BitcoinXT is set to trigger with 75% miner support. This means it can trigger with only 50% miner support + a lucky streak. Or if there are malicious people running NoXT, they can cause the trigger to go off without majority support. When that happens, there's no guarantee that the losing side will all switch to running BitcoinXT. Now you've got a split user base and miner base. Some wallets will support BTC, some will support BTCXT, and some may support both. Same for exchanges and payment processors. It's going to be total chaos. Miners will switch back and forth between mining BTC and BTCXT. Users will send transactions on one network and not know why the recipient didn't get it. The price for both coins will tank. If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea. from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tjGet a grip won't you. Don't use your research to support a network attack. You've made your block size intentions clears but that doesn't mean you have to rally behind a governance coup just because they pretend to share your same ideals. And please stop "developer centralization" concern trolling. Bitcoin XT is a one man show. If you sign up for this you are electing that Bitcoin development be headed by a notoriously controversial individual who has a rap sheet for being very pro-corporations and governments. This attempt could seriously damage developer trust and discourage some much needed mind share from maintaining our infrastructure. Mike has repeatedly stated he prefers a very authoritarian method of development. In the event that core essentially becomes XT he has explicitly stated decisions would come down to him. Think this through properly and figure out if this is preferable to an historically reliable group of core dev applying proven, consensus-based, improvement implementations. |
|
|
|
That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support
Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below. .. you've conveniently missed out other risks on your decision matrix. Like minimally-reviewed, untested code, anti-privacy agendas of the developers involved in XT ... so conservative decision on an honest matrix, I'd say no. It would be helpful to have a version of Core + BIP101 released by an independent party (to calm the fears about the other changes in XT [although I believe those fears are baseless]). This is what jonald_fyookball and jwinterm proposed a few minutes ago here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.msg12224417#msg12224417this would be buying the good cop/bad cop false dilemma where somehow to erase the fright of a possible XT-induced fork war we "settle" for pulling the same broken proposition in core. Forget 8MB & forget exponential growth. |
|
|
|
That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support
Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below. That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't. Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it. 14% of the nodes are buying it as of today. That's up from 0% a little over a week ago. Let's see how much of the hash power is buying it two months from now... Refer to my edit XT is DOA and supported only by a circle jerk of /r/bitcoin exiles running pretendnodes on 15$ VPS accounts.
It is fair to say only a very irrelevant amount of full nodes holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain are actually running XT as we speak
Take your eyes off the scoreboard for a second. It is meaningless and they put it there for a reason. You're playing right into their hands. Watch the game won't you? |
|
|
|
That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support
Switching to XT is the conservative decision, as illustrated in the figure below. That is if anyone actually plans to move to XT, which they don't. Seriously wake up Peter, no one is buying it. XT is DOA and support only by a circle jerk of /r/bitcoin exilees running pretendnodes on 15$ VPS accounts. It is fair to say only a very irrelevant amount of full nodes holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain are actually running XT as we speak |
|
|
|
@TerraMaster But still miners need the majority of the nodes, and the nodes of exchanges, payment processors ecc .. Even if the 99% of the miners will chose to be on BIP101, but the majority of nodes will still with the old block format, the 1% of miners are going to make a lot of money, because only their blocks will be validated from the network (the majority of nodes/services/users) So miners have a lot of power, but still they need to follow the will of the market. Anyway, I think that the market will converge on the BIP101  Yes that's true, and a real point,,, that's why I quickly mentioned there will have to be enough XT nodes to support that  its like which would come first the nodes or the miners/hash lol chicken or the egg I think they would grow together.... That is not a question... No miners will make any significant switch unless they get equally significant node support |
|
|
|
To be quite honest I don't see how any smart person (I consider you are one) can view reddit as anything more than some group think cargo cult full of loud but absolutely irrelevant voices.
Thank you. I also recognize that you are intelligent. I also believe that you are young. I think I may have had a view more inline with yours a decade ago. That's too bad.... Old dogs do indeed lose the will to fight  Hahaha. Let's see how it all pans out, shall we? I think you're gonna get your increase.  Don't get your hopes up for any 8 mb blocks or exponential increase though Definitely prepare to say goodbye to Gavin & Mike |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
