I don't know if it is a new problem or not, but the explanations and creation of understandings in the minds of the broader public may be made more difficult by the "one ledger only" notions. EmptyGox very clearly had its own ledger which at some point became irreconcilable with the Bitcoin block chain. If it were a side chain company that had monkeyed with its code to do these shenanigans, it would possibly been more noticeable (if it were being openly mined by folks that examine source changes), but if they managed to keep it hidden, or were privately mining (like Ripple?) it may also be more difficult to explain to the "one ledger only" believers how this is possible.
In the earlier example where scBTC1 failed and scBTC2 became an altcoin, at some point in this process there are very clearly (at least) two separate ledgers.
I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able. Others might suggest some other time. Maybe at one of the many changes that resulted in the failure of scBTC1, or maybe after it fails, or maybe never and the scBTC2 altcoin and Bitcoin are still just one ledger. In that case, when the ledger of scBTC1 failed, some might get confused and say the Bitcoin ledger failed. (Since they have been told that there is only one ledger, and something failed, so it must be that.)
It seems simpler and more sensible to me to consider each side chain its own potentially merge-able ledger. It is hard enough to try to explain how a ledger is merged with "something" when there is only one ledger in the first place, with what then is it merged?
I think the notion that there is one main ledger is absolutely accurate In my view, the more accurate definition of sidechains are that they are a sub-ledgers of Bitcoin. I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able.
This is the part where I disagree. There are no coins in a sidechain at its inception therefore there is no ledger. The ledger is only created once coins derived from the main ledger (Bitcoin) are locked into the sidechain. For that reason I believe the best way to describe it is one main ledger equipped with several other sub-ledgers that derive their monetary unit from the main ledger. Lol, earlier on you admitted to me we were dealing with "different" ledgers after I had to correct you . Answer this, what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario? |
|
|
|
talk about backpedaling.
so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.
You really shouldn't talk about backpedaling, this is really all you've been doing for the last 100 pages. My argument was never that schemes like this wouldn't happen. In fact, please dig up ONE post where I say so. I'll wait Of course, and this actually support my point.
We are going to see MtGoxCHAIN, MoohlahCHAIN *truthcoinCHAIN* but eventually CoinbaseCHAIN, CircleCHAIN or BitstampCHAIN are going to be established and these are the ones "ordinary people" are going to use
the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you down into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2 utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.
You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton. |
|
|
|
"Imagination" being the operative word here. see, even this simpleton gets it:  |
|
|
|
SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.
and speculation NEVER happens in Bitcoin, right? |
|
|
|
we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins. if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.
NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.
 please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem. lol, i guess i'm hearing things. I agree 100% with brg444. SC is not AltCoin. SC is new feature/service over Bitcoin. hey, you forgot about Truthcoin! Cashcoin! whateva. you're not the only one with imagination. just look how this entrepreneuring young man has seen the opportunity in SC's for him to logarithmically increase his advertising claims in what he sees as the next great opportunity for altcoins. for just one Truthcoin, you can enable all the features of Ethereum, Bitshares, Counterparty, NXT, Dogecoin, uh, i'm exhausted... did i forget any? looks like it can give you everything you can possibly want:  |
|
|
|
look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!   looks legit, would invest +1 the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will.  A fool and his money.... yeah you know the rest talk about backpedaling. so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along. |
|
|
|
The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger
I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.
These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services. Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 and the main thread work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary. it's my turn to call you out. these 2 views of yours are contradictory and were made out of convenience to the discussion at hand. |
|
|
|
You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.
Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.
Edit2:
Architecture
<bitcoin>
<crypto-noteSC> - decentralized network btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
<scBTC - asset>
<scDrug - asset>
<silkRoadSC-1 /> - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
<silkRoadSC-2 /> - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
</crypto-noteSC>
</bitcoin>
i just love your imagination! so refreshing. great example of what will happen with SC's. in fact, you're gonna do it. |
|
|
|
i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times.  And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin. To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best. not those exact words. i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:
5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.Exposing the weaknesses of altcoins to support the advantages of using the sidechain technology.. how dare they do that! well, if you hadn't said this...
please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins.
...then i wouldn't have said that. and neither would have Melbustus. |
|
|
|
i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. And it absolutely might be true but do you really think the guys Blockchain, when developing sidechains, were like : "These damn altcoins! We'll show em!" The "major" argument is that the innovation of sidechain make most altcoins irrelevant but allow us to conserve their original intended purpose which was to innovate on top of Bitcoin. To say "oh well network effect was taking care of that anyway so no need for sidechains" is shortsighted at best. not those exact words. i suspect they were more subtle, like here pg 14:
5.1 Altchain experiments
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets. |
|
|
|
Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.
I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.
If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.
At least that is my expectation / hope.
Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money. When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services. If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies. I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board. Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement. I understand where you're coming from but I didn't see "blame" putting the cash back in the pocket of MtGox, Moolah, etc customers. At the end of the day the money is lost and most of the blame is on the user for not properly assessing the risks. you're cherry picking old news. it's changing for the better. for instance, Bitstamp's main investor is Pantera Capital who is not only forcing founders to comply with consumer regs but is also risking equity that can be seized if Bitstamp tries something funny. this is happening across the industry. |
|
|
|
look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin! looks legit, would invest +1 the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will. |
|
|
|
looks like it can give you everything you can possibly want: |
|
|
|
look everyone! a Free Lunch! Cashcoin! |
|
|
|
we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins. if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.
NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.
please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem. lol, i guess i'm hearing things. You're not, you just need to be a little more honest in your arguments. i've heard the "solution to altcoins" argument at least a dozen times. |
|
|
|
Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.
I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.
If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.
At least that is my expectation / hope.
Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money. When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services. If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies. Odalv, you need to bring us some imagination! |
|
|
|
we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins. if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.
NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.
please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem. lol, i guess i'm hearing things. |
|
|
|
So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.
Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.
no i don't agree. i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk. ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume. Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also. I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault. If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used. At least that is my expectation / hope. i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views. is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9459338#msg9459338 |
|
|
|
i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.
the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.
that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme? If the notion is that: "Side Chains are great because people more foolish than I am will mistakenly trust some bad ones, and use them, and lose some of their coins making mine more valuable." Than this isn't particularly good for Bitcoin if people lose confidence in it, so whether it may or may not be good for one's own bitcoin value is questionable. Here is one scenario where BTCs may be lost to MC in this way, essentially rendered unspendable through an economic activity. 1) Some BTC is SPV'd to scBTC 1. 2) Some scBTC 1 is SPV'd to scBTC 2. 3) scBTC 1 is discovered to be a scam (or just a bad implementation) whereas scBTC 1coin massively inflates so that no one on scBTC 2 has any incentive to SPV back from scBTC 2 to scBTC 1 and so no way to return to MC. (Yes, you can create a side chain from a side chain.) complexity risks... Edit: Is there a way to have such an event without sidechains, or is this a "new" risk? this scenario is helpful in conceptualizing what is happening. the "BTC is locked up on the MC in UTXO and never leaves" potentially gives a false impression that there will always be 21M. it tempts one to ignore what's happening beyond the other side of the 2wp out there in SC world. the pass thru model forces one to consider and concentrate on what is going on out there as these scBTC are jumping from SC to SC each one of each could fail or be a scam. assuming there will be attrition of scBTC over time, the conclusion is there will always be <21M ever decreasing. Whether the BTC are transferred to one sidechain or to multiple links of the sidechains, the result is the same. Either: 1) Bitcoin is the backing reserve asset to any linked scBTC. If so then convertibility is maintained and Bitcoin functions as the security mechanism, or 2) scBTC jump from SC to SC (as your example) and one sidechain in the link breaks, which breaks the link back to the underlying backing BTC. This however in effect converts that scBTC into an altcoin, those scBTC are no longer convertible with BTC and Bitcoin is no longer providing the underlying security. Such a situation converts a SC into an altcoin. I'm fine with that because the market is showing how network effects are slowly crushing altcoins. Once an SC converts into an altcoin, it now loses all network effects and is cast off on it's own. It now functions separately from the entire bitcoin ecosystem and can not be used with that ecosystem. Such an altcoin I believe will lose value and diminish to nothingness. You can't hide this from users, they are now locked out of the rest of the bitcoin ecosystem, that is huge. Altcoins scare the crap out of me, the are the only threat to the Sound Money principle. But as stated before network effects seem to be properly working, I expect that to continue. The pegging mechanism ensures convertibility, which exposes if the sidechain is #1 or #2. If a sidechain breaks convertibility, it becomes #2 it is now an altcoin. we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins. if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them. NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially. |
|
|
|
If the notion is that: "Side Chains are great because people more foolish than I am will mistakenly trust some bad ones, and use them, and lose some of their coins making mine more valuable."
Than this isn't particularly good for Bitcoin if people lose confidence in it, so whether it may or may not be good for one's own bitcoin value is questionable.
Here is one scenario where BTCs may be lost to MC in this way, essentially rendered unspendable through an economic activity.
1) Some BTC is SPV'd to scBTC1.
2) Some scBTC1 is SPV'd to scBTC2.
3) scBTC1 is discovered to be a scam (or just a bad implementation) whereas scBTC1coin massively inflates so that no one on scBTC2 has any incentive to SPV back from scBTC2 to scBTC1 and so no way to return to MC.
(Yes, you can create a side chain from a side chain.)
complexity risks...
Edit: Is there a way to have such an event without sidechains, or is this a "new" risk?
well essentially you're suggesting the coins were initially transferred to a non-secure scheme without proper due diligence from the owner so my answer is no, this is not a "new" risk. Can you help me understand how do we do this without the side chains? For example, using an alt coin does something quite different: If I sell bitcoin for an alt coin which turns out to be a long con scam, but before the scam was sprung, I had traded them to a different alt coin, I could still trade that second alt coin for BTC, and the BTC I initially traded away are not essentially "burned" they are still being exchanged on MC by whomever got them from me. It doesn't matter if you transfer it to a second, third or fourth sidechain. The onus of your decision is in validating the security of your initial transfer off the Bitcoin mainchain. Either you keep your Bitcoin on chain or you take the risk of trusting some other scheme with your coins. What is the incentive? What are the risks? Any ensuing event will be a consequence of that decision. Once you leave the mainchain you forego your position in the only established trustless crypto environment. we're worried about ordinary ppl who in the future might want to get into Bitcoin. they won't have the technical expertise or knowledge to know what's going on. as we've seen from altcoins, they can always attract a crowd be it with deception or true value. to think that SC's changes this is to be determined. you did see my post from earlier today? So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams. no i don't agree. i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk. ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
