i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

once again, you misunderstand. 

they can mess with their own internal ledgers but any BTC deposited to the general deposit address still lies on the MC.

My argument has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles.

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you? 

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

SNARK proof and SPV proof are not same proofs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?

So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.



The comparison to Google is apt.  They capitalized on new compression mathematics that they didn't develop, but came out of the human genome project.  Blockstream is also hoping to capitalize on the network effect of Bitcoin, otherwise this would be developed on an altcoin and vetted more properly before plugging it into Bitcoin.

In the lab you can evaluate the code and technology, but not the economics.  At best you can model that, and even the best models fail constantly.
Remember 2008?  Greenspan's models failed.  They all fail ultimately.  The map is not the terrain.

So... name the 2nd company and prove the lie?


SPV proof is only half the game.  The proof provider is the other half.  All SPV does is verify what the proof provider is doing.
The "head-start" is about half a decade ahead of anyone else, and draws from a very small pool of experts.  Practically draining that pool.
It is disingenuous to suggest that ANYONE can do this.  It is taking very good advantage of a very privileged position.

The miners do the work of mining.  They do not do the work of SNARKs.  They do not create the proof, they do not cryptographically codify all the code that underpins the proof.  They simply verify.  The bulk of the work here is not done by the miners.

Is there another?


You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

and i accept that.  i just don't think it represents the existential danger you're trying to make it out to be and certainly is not to be used as a "reason" to implement spvp.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative SIDECURENCY to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

hey, it worked didn't it?  

i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself.  and i didn't have to pay a dime.  btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream.

it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said?  for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically.  instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking).

hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake.  i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school.  i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs.  i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions.  i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love.

and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

let me distill it even further.

brg444 is trying to scare us into believing that unless we implement spvp to core, all these thousands of SC entities are going to move to federated servers which are opaque and much more ominous and threatening to Bitcoin.  somehow.

Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV. 

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Has anyone else noticed that we have won a major, major concession from brg444 inadvertently?

For the first 150 pages or so of this debate he has argued that SC's are one and the same ledger as bitcoin. He had contorted that definition with terms like "extensions"  or "sub ledgers"  in his rush to defend Blockstream and SC's .

Now,  for the last 50  pages or so he has inadvertently given up that battle and now inexplicably agrees with with every argument I've used assuming that they are in fact different ledgers.  This is what happens when you're blindy  defending something based not on principle but emotion.

And that is a major victory. Certainly one worth pointing out. The different ledger theory is a major pillar of the objection against SC's due to their insecurity and potential for manipulation.