if I controlled enough hashing power I'd be manipulating the flow of BTC in and out trying to disturb a fixed market equilibrium buying low and converting back,
Please explain how you would do that. |
|
|
|
The way BlockStream has proposed to manage what you call BDS is to have in principal the multisig authorizing of Bitcoin transactions in and out of different secured ledgers, this will alow miners to MM BDS's in exchange for a token that is guaranteed to be redeemable in BTC by the BCP.
The perversion is miners could MM a BDS earn additional Bitcoin, without being forced to mine on the BCP or use there hashing power to protect the BCN.
MM = GOOD, but MM for BTC* is an attack at the very incentives that protect the BCN.
*MM alts are subject to market force, so while you can exchange them for BTC, the BCN is unaffected by them, if they gain value it will be a utilitarian value unsupported by the BCN, and thus just grow the ecosystem, otherwise it will shrivel and die as a scam.
MM a BDS that gives a token that is redeemable for BTC regardless of market rates allows miners to earn BTC equivalent tokens without contributing there hashing power (securing the Bitcoin blockchain) on the BCN, or any work to the greater economy. I.e. it has similar characteristics to our financial system today. What changes is just trust the central bank now becomes just trust the protocol. Making a change to the BCP to alow this is evil at the core.
Again, this doesn't seem quite right to me. "BDS" that give a token (block subsidy) are alts. They are in nature inflationary and by no means can you redeem these units for equivalent amounts of BTC. Remember, you can only return to the mainchain what has been locked out. Why would a miner MM a BDS? Transaction fees, nothing but a good old honest 1:1 exchange is needed the token being the BTC substitute of the BDS blockchain. (Sure there will be SC with inflationary block subsidies call them what you like, I'll call them SC's) Just a thought but alts add more value to the crypto market than SC, the reason those that fail illustrate the markets preference for a simple better money. SC will not succumb to the same market evolution. Alts that aren't scams will provide new utility. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Your argument seems to be that sidechains change miners incentive who can now earn subsidy for their without having to secure the Bitcoin network. Can you explain how this is any different that a miner who at this very moment can decide to MM Bitcoin and Namecoin? MM NMC is converted to BTC at a market rate. MM a SC is similar while it's small, but I can hold the transaction fees regardless of the market and convert at a fixed rate guaranteed by the Bitcoin protocol. In 10 years when transaction fees supersede Bitcoin block rewards the blockchain with the greater revenue will attract the most mining, as time goes on it becomes more unlikely it will be Bitcoin, the skeptic in me believes the economic majority who believe a modest 2% inflation is healthy for an economy will prefer a blockchain with that feature. I see, I guess we're back to square one whereas I believe at this point it will be trivial for miners to equally mine ANY chain with supporting considerable value so as to substain an ecosystem of co-existing blockchains without any incentive to favor a particular one. Miners have X amount of hashing power. There is no valuable argument IMO for them to cut short their profits by allocating this hashing only to one particular sidechain. I think I have mentioned to you previously that I consider cryptocurrency to be in some sense the democratization of money. Of course, this means we should expect 2% inflationary sidechains to eventually show up. They might indeed gather considerable traction from those who favor inflationary economies. On the other hand, there's a reason why you, Adrian-x, and a bunch of us here consider fixed supply money to be favorable : we believe it will can eventually lead to a healthier economic system. If we are right then the economic majority will, at last, have a free-market alternative to consider other than their inflationary currency. |
|
|
|
The way BlockStream has proposed to manage what you call BDS is to have in principal the multisig authorizing of Bitcoin transactions in and out of different secured ledgers, this will alow miners to MM BDS's in exchange for a token that is guaranteed to be redeemable in BTC by the BCP.
The perversion is miners could MM a BDS earn additional Bitcoin, without being forced to mine on the BCP or use there hashing power to protect the BCN.
MM = GOOD, but MM for BTC* is an attack at the very incentives that protect the BCN.
*MM alts are subject to market force, so while you can exchange them for BTC, the BCN is unaffected by them, if they gain value it will be a utilitarian value unsupported by the BCN, and thus just grow the ecosystem, otherwise it will shrivel and die as a scam.
MM a BDS that gives a token that is redeemable for BTC regardless of market rates allows miners to earn BTC equivalent tokens without contributing there hashing power (securing the Bitcoin blockchain) on the BCN, or any work to the greater economy. I.e. it has similar characteristics to our financial system today. What changes is just trust the central bank now becomes just trust the protocol. Making a change to the BCP to alow this is evil at the core.
Again, this doesn't seem quite right to me. "BDS" that give a token (block subsidy) are alts. They are in nature inflationary and by no means can you redeem these units for equivalent amounts of BTC. Remember, you can only return to the mainchain what has been locked out. Why would a miner MM a BDS? Transaction fees, nothing but a good old honest 1:1 exchange is needed the token being the BTC substitute of the BDS blockchain. (Sure there will be SC with inflationary block subsidies call them what you like, I'll call them SC's) Just a thought but alts add more value to the crypto market than SC, the reason those that fail illustrate the markets preference for a simple better money. SC will not succumb to the same market evolution. Alts that aren't scams will provide new utility. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Your argument seems to be that sidechains change miners incentive who can now earn subsidy for their work without having to secure the Bitcoin network. Can you explain how this is any different that a miner who at this very moment can decide to MM Bitcoin and Namecoin? |
|
|
|
The way BlockStream has proposed to manage what you call BDS is to have in principal the multisig authorizing of Bitcoin transactions in and out of different secured ledgers, this will alow miners to MM BDS's in exchange for a token that is guaranteed to be redeemable in BTC by the BCP.
The perversion is miners could MM a BDS earn additional Bitcoin, without being forced to mine on the BCP or use there hashing power to protect the BCN.
MM = GOOD, but MM for BTC* is an attack at the very incentives that protect the BCN.
*MM alts are subject to market force, so while you can exchange them for BTC, the BCN is unaffected by them, if they gain value it will be a utilitarian value unsupported by the BCN, and thus just grow the ecosystem, otherwise it will shrivel and die as a scam.
MM a BDS that gives a token that is redeemable for BTC regardless of market rates allows miners to earn BTC equivalent tokens without contributing there hashing power (securing the Bitcoin blockchain) on the BCN, or any work to the greater economy. I.e. it has similar characteristics to our financial system today. What changes is just trust the central bank now becomes just trust the protocol. Making a change to the BCP to alow this is evil at the core.
Again, this doesn't seem quite right to me. "BDS" that give a token (block subsidy) are alts. They are in nature inflationary and by no means can you redeem these units for equivalent amounts of BTC. Remember, you can only return to the mainchain what has been locked out of it. In a properly implemented, ideal sidechain there is no block subsidy. |
|
|
|
That if your home computer had to do 2.25TB/day down to be a full node you might not be able to do it, which is a centralising factor.
Adam
Lets put problems in perspective, when I'm faced with the problem of managing 2.2TB/day in Bitcoin tx's the value stored in my 10 BTC that I've held onto all this time will take my hobby to a whole new level. Building that data storage system would be a labour of love many will do it just to make sure there 10 BTC are secure. The problem is not so much the storage. Bandwidth is where you'll run into a bottleneck |
|
|
|
Please let me try again to spread my ignorance about sidechains.  Perhaps the sidechains project could be renamed "ways in which the bitcoin network (BCN) can interact with other internet services, and how the bitcoin protocol (BCP) would have to be modified to allow them". These "other services" being the "sidechains". Different people have different ideas of what sort of services would qualify for "sidechains", but let's not focus on that, focus instead on the interactions. In order to exclude those variable assumptions, I will use the term "bitcoin-dependent service" (BDS) instead of "sidechain". I gather that there are at least three kinds of interactions that are being discussed: 1. Bitcoins may be somehow be "moved" from the BTC blockchain to the BDS, who would handle them in some way, and eventually "return" them to the BTC blockchain. This kind of interaction does not seem to require any change in the BCP or the BCN, and in fact is routinely used by exchanges and other similar services. It would suffice to move the coins to BTC addresses whose private keys are known and managed by the BDS. To "return" the coins, the BDS would have only to sign transactions out of those addresses. The BDS is free to manage the private keys of its addresses any way it sees fit. The BDS may allow its users to generate those addresses and keep the keys, or it may keep the keys in its central servers, or it may use the standard bitcoin multisig mechanism, etc. Thus the bitcoin network does not even need to know that the BDS exists; and this use of the BCN by the BDS is "fair use" by tradition and design I'm sorry but these are not sidechains. In this scenario there exist only one blockchain, Bitcoin's, where the units are stored/assigned to wallets and not a secondary blockchain. Exchanges for example have multiple wallets storing their clients' fund and an internal ledger of ownership that determines how much bitcoins every clients are storing. |
|
|
|
Yet this from you: what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain  You have spoken at length about federated servers without ever actually understanding how they work. Why should I take your opinion seriously or even consider your attacks on sidechains if I cannot trust anymore whether or not you grok them? This discussion has been all over the place and plastered with comments and critiques from people who have apparently not even taken a minute to understand the concepts behind the sidechain technology. What's more concerning is the actions of others who are blindly supporting these assertions and increasing the confusion. I appreciate the contributions of most here, especially Adam but some would really benefit from stepping outside this cacophony and sharpen their understanding instead of adding to the noise. |
|
|
|
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.
none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying. SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC ) I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain. With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to. Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg. Adam Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain.  Are you kidding me? I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech. Don't bother with the simpleton.
He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.
you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines. Yet this from you: what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain merely pointing out some of you who are actually entertaining this false assumption proposed by professional troll jstolfi |
|
|
|
I've always been more inclined to favor more of a token system for 'exchange currency' duty. Under such a 'token flavored sidechain' I would only wish to be able to verify that I am in sole control of my tokens and could induce a particular native Bitcoin retrieval on demand. For such a system I would accept a certain amount of slop since this would go a long way toward implementation efficiency, and I won't die if I lose (or gain) a few nickles in some sort of a SC failure.
none of what you're saying then makes sense compared to what Adam has been saying. SC's are blockchains except in the case of federated server SC's (but even that definition is being fuzzed over by the SC ppl calling an internal ledger a SC ) I think it was more JorgeStolfi with the internal ledger (the sofa/couch in bitstamps office?), I would not call an internal ledger a chain - a chain has to be real-time publicly audited I think, to be called a chain. With federated peg there is a real side-chain, including mining, consensus rules etc and then the federated peg servers act as a protocol adaptor - the peg servers are full nodes on the side-chain, and pegged coins are paid to their multisig address (eg 10 of 15) and the side-chain fullnodes and miners watch the multisig address on the bitcoin network, and coins arriving there count as a peg to put coins into the side-chain; and when the side-chain hashrate majority approves a return peg to reanimate a coin, the federated pegs are watching the side-chain as they are full nodes there too, so they release the funds to the address the return peg tells them to. Now obviously the limitation is if >= 10 of the federated peg servers are hostile or compromised, they could take the coin without approval of the side-chain. But short of that it is the side-chain consensus and miners etc that arbitrate what coins move across the peg. Adam Ok, this is new info to all of here who assumed federated server implementations of SC's were just that, server based only, without blockchains. This sounds more like a Ripple type system with gateways and a blockchain. Are you kidding me? I can't believe we've been discussing this for the last few hundred pages and you are yet to have a clue about the underlying tech. Don't bother with the simpleton.
He's been operating under the assumption that SC's are token, not blockchains, lol.
you are so, so confused. the last few pages were brillant really. I had a blast watching from the sidelines. |
|
|
|
what is this bizarro world where any ledger of ownership qualifies as a blockchain |
|
|
|
However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result. Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper  I did read it, and also the "sidechains for dummies" blogpost that people recommended, and some more posts. So what you are saying is that I did not understand it at all. Perhaps. But then I ask, for example, why Bitstamp is not already a "sidechain". OK, it is not decentralized nor merge-mined, but does the whitepaper say that a sidechain must be those things? My impression is that the paper did not want to rule out anything, for fear that it might prevent co-opting a possible "bitcoin killer". For a thing to be a sidechain I guess it would need to first be a chain. Can you point me to Bitstamp's blockchain? |
|
|
|
However, there are no details in the paper to even tell what applications could be "sidechains", how the integration would work, what concrete benefits they would derive from that, why other projects could not obtain the same benefits without being "sidechains of bitcoin" -- and why would bitcoin be saved as a result. Needless to say, there is also no analysis of possible failure modes.
So I take it you didn't read the paper |
|
|
|
who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience. I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased |
|
|
|
take a longer view for bitcoin , the bull market will not begins until more people
accept it
Two ETF are coming. Should be enough people Which is the second one? I only know about the one of the winklevoss twins. OTCQX from BIT (Barry Silbert) |
|
|
|
NotLambchop, So much hard work (trolling) devoted to counter the bulls with solid Fud. When once you hold precious btc and parted from them at 600-ish ( so late  ) And now you plan to buy back, as you are working hard for those discounted coins all day long If you were certain of your arguments, should have opened a big short long time and advertise it here You just want to buy back cheaper Disappointing bear are you We need a true disbeliever! Nah, no certainty on my part. Since you know that I averaged in the 600s (wasn't a single sell, who does that?), you also prob'ly know that I haven't done any serious trading for over a year. I started posting in this thread when BTC was above $500 (on the way down), and never bragged about my trading because I find doing so distasteful. Some bulltards goaded me into revealing what little you know, so yah, faux pas on my part. Not losing sleep over it tho. Why is it you think that I'm looking to get back in again? Because you're here  |
|
|
|
take a longer view for bitcoin , the bull market will not begins until more people
accept it
Two ETF are coming. Should be enough people |
|
|
|
Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?
Nop, Monetas will just end up using sidechains  |
|
|
|
regulation and laws are meaningless when the actors behave above the law and the regulators/enforcers are bought and paid for, you are pissing into the hurricane with Dodd-Frank (both of whom were irrevocably compromised by wall st. funding btw)
Wall st. is beyond help, the only thing that will change them is a truly better technology that makes them obsolete ... that's why they hate bitcoin and spew their vitriol ... it is also why they WILL adopt.
Lol, You're talking about securities? Let's see, the foremost bitcoin securities exchange, Havelock Investments, had dozens of "securities" listed throughout its existence. At this point, all but one are showing spectacular loss (the one that is not yet showing loss is a cloudmining contract, so give it another month). And that's the ones that didn't simply run away with their marks' investment enthusiasts' coins. TL;DR: bitcoin's equivalent of Wall St. is 100% scam and theft, impossible to surpass or even match by the crookedest IRL exchange. Surprised by the dearth of knowledge, marcus_of_augustus, you've been around long enough to know better Edit: Of course, if we're talking financial services, there's Pirate@40, Nefario, TradeFortress, Ukyo, Cryptocypruss (Neo Bee Danny), Gox Mark and so on. Not just scamming you, buddy, simply taking your coins and waving se ya A lamb and his money.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
