I think the obvious technical shortcomings I have displayed in this thread suggest this other brain fart of yours is not quite likely
boys, boys ... we are all just trying to tease out the pros and cons of SCs, let's keep it productive. wouldn't an exit of miners to SC's help the Blockstream business model?
it is a good reflex to persistently ask cui bono. but as brg444 has argued, and as seems straightforward, this is not a great concern. the existence of any SC depends on the integrity of the MC. so in principle SCs do not incentivize abandonment of MC mining. looking far into the future, when there is no block reward and all miner revenue comes from tx fees, adrian-x foresees a possibility in which SC mining could be more profitable than MC mining, which might start to provide incentive to devote more hashing resources to SCs than to the MC. but is this worry not supposed to be addressed by the fact that miners of SCs have every reason to merge mine with the MC? MM can only be expected to be a % of whichever is MC. like Namecoin, approx 70% of MC hashing. so more vulnerable. |
|
|
|
Did you somehow think it escaped us that some SC could be used for nefarious purposes? That we believe ALL SC should be trusted?
Sounds like we have a core dev in our midst.   I think the obvious technical shortcomings I have displayed in this thread suggest this other brain fart of yours is not quite likely We, we, Senor!!! |
|
|
|
....
Then we agree. Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters. It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others). In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided. The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work. If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock. But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers. notme, you're into math. you've looked at the SPV proof. i take it you're satisfied. can you distill it down for us non maths as to how it works and why we should take comfort? |
|
|
|
|
We're going UP.
Last chance to get in the train.
|
|
|
|
Did you somehow think it escaped us that some SC could be used for nefarious purposes? That we believe ALL SC should be trusted?
Sounds like we have a core dev in our midst. |
|
|
|
....
Then we agree. Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters. It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others). In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided. The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work. If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock. But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers. Is it possible for attackers to do this in reverse? Take someone's cold wallet and lock them into an SPVPROOF on a SC while the true owner is indisposed for some reason? Or is this impossible because they would need the private keys to begin with? |
|
|
|
The better question is what is the use case for a paypal chain?
Paypal is used to send money over the world. Bitcoin does that natively so honestly I don't see it.
How about: cheaper transactions or faster confirmations than on the blockchain? I have some BTC. Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain. I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.
Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money. I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that. As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else. I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue. For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right. If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.
This scenario seems needlessly complex right now: it would be far simpler (and would drive adoption) if ebay vendors directly accepted BTC. But down the road tx fees will likely be relatively heftier, and use cases for microtransactions greater. SCs are presented as a possible solution to these issues. What (trustless) alternatives do the SC skeptics propose? wouldn't an exit of miners to SC's help the Blockstream business model? |
|
|
|
did you understand the math? being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW. also something about headers and summary hashes:
While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.
No, I've mostly been looking at the concept and playing with that. What I've seen at the concept level I like. For now, I've assumed the math behind the two-way pegging system is sound. This is something I need to understand better before completely buying into the concept. Hopefully over the coming months there will be better layman descriptions of the two-way pegging system and from there can dive in the details more. This was the process I used when learning ECDSA originally. It's entirely possible once I understand the pegging system better I'll hate the idea, but for now am looking at the concept assuming the peg works as advertised. If anyone understand the math behind the peg, please share. I think everyone could use that. changing the script op codes to accommodate these proofs while embedding additional data into blocks changes things quite a bit in terms of complexity to the Bitcoin protocol it appears. one can claim that it is only a change in the script but when you realize all routine BTC tx's occur within script, it doesn't seem so trivial of a change. the 2wp is also not so seamless when you consider it takes at least a full 2d to get thru these contest/confimration periods. |
|
|
|
who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs? is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?
also, what is the structure of a SC? does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?
i assume the crypto would be the same? ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?
The SC two-way peg mechanism lets you move information (in this case bitcoins) from one blockchain A to another blockchain B, use that data (in this case scBTC) however the new blockchain B allows, and then move them back to the original blockchain A. The new blockchain B (sidechain) could be setup any way it wants. The design space is entirely open. The one constraint is the 2-way peg. If blockchain A transfers 10 BTC to blockchain B, then regardless of whatever happens on blockchain B, blockchain B can only reclaim 10 BTC on the main blockchain A. I'd imagine most sidechains would start at a their own block 1, and operate from there. They may have coinbases in found blocks or may not. They may use sha256 or something (anything) else for POW. They may use ECDSA, or something (anything) else. If they try something that fails and is hacked, it only effects people who transferred value to that sidechain as the sidechain can only reclaim the original value transferred to it. If they have coinbases it does not change the fact that they can only reclaim the original BTC that were sent. I'd imagine most sidechains will have no coinbase on use the same crypto as Bitcoin so transaction fees alone would attract miners to MM and thus benefit from Bitcoin's hashrate. There could also be centralized sidechains that trust a single entity. (i.e. a paypal coin) Here no real mining needs to happen because the centralized entity would maintain the block order. In all these cases though the concept of a single 21M BTC ledger is preserved through the 2-way pegging system. This maintains the economics of Bitcoin and it's role as sound money. Bitcoin is the parent chain and all sidechains are children chains dependent on the Bitcoin genesis chain, the total value of all will only total 21M BTC at any given time. The thing to remember is Bitcoin is the root of the system, within a world of many sidechains Bitcoin is still the genesis chain, there is still only one ledger due to the 2-way peg. If anything starts to screw up Bitcoin (such as miners exiting due to no fees) it effects all and the community would work to fix that. March 2013 showed how focused everyone is in the face of existential threats. did you understand the math? being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW. also something about headers and summary hashes: While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
. |
|
|
|
geezuz crimony. i actually AM starting to feel bad:  |
|
|
|
|
who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs? is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?
also, what is the structure of a SC? does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?
i assume the crypto would be the same? ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?
|
|
|
|
|
I need to sign off for at least am hour
|
|
|
|
|
You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.
Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case?
|
|
|
|
I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i?
 you are the same guy who said I couldn't see past my nose!? the same guy who said anonymity is perfectly desirable and that a anonymous sidechain would potentially siphon all of the BTC !? what's wrong with improving Bitcoin for greater use of its moneraty function? Yes, just do it on MC |
|
|
|
Once you understand that sidechains are just that "sub-coins to Bitcoins 21M controlled supply", then it is natural to see sidechains as part of the original Sound Money plan. They simply offer a mechanism to increase functionality without a hard fork. Period
But these guys think that sidechains are somehow reinventing the altcoin threat They don't care or wanna hear about the innovation of 1:1 two-way peg, they are busy fighting the inexistant altcoin threat Exactly... The only feature a sidechain can add to the existing altcoin concept is decentralized exchange. If this is the only thing holding back the flood of investments into altcoins, than all of us primarily holding Bitcoin are fucked, because sidechains or not, it is coming. , read appendix A of federated pegs. The SC protocol changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will over time have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason. Decentralized Exchange can be done using existing technologies not need to introduce a change to the prototypical that introduces disincentives for miners to mine Bitcoin. if there is was any chance that what i say was true student it be worth trying to understand why that is? I'm not even sure what you are claiming I should be worried about, let alone whether it is true or not. HOW does SC break the incentive structure? Don't hold back on the details, I'm a miner, a computer scientist, I've read the SC whitepaper (including the appendicies), and I've been working with bitcoin technologies for 4 years. Give me something concrete to be afraid of that doesn't involve crazy cypher pumping shitcoins. But yet you would not trust my incessant buy recommendations during the entire year when you were subbed to my newsletter when bitcoin went straight up. |
|
|
|
Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes.
So core devs, have to wait for decade until shit happens and then fix it in 10 mins ? No, not wait until last minute. Work together now to expand block size. |
|
|
|
I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.
The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.
There is still a chance they wake up.
Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that. Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were. In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain? if not, do you want it to be? Bitcoin the currency will never leave Bitcoin the Blockchain, even with sidechains. Sidechains just gives you more potential uses for your Bitcoins.... locking them gains you tokens that have added functionality. I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i? How about 7tps? Maybe, maybe not. No one knows but it certainly isn't a problem now. And if it becomes one, why not innovate on Mc ? So you'd rather risk it all than allow development to happen on a segregated portion of the network? Given the impressive recovery after 0.8.1, yes. |
|
|
|
I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.
The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.
There is still a chance they wake up.
Actually I only see 3 sidechains opponents who clearly do not understand the value proposition of sidechains and insist on sticking ignorant characteristics like "inflation" or "extraction of value" to it when sidechains enable NONE of that. Maybe you never bothered considering altcoins enough to realise that they are actually the enemy you are fighting. Now that you see them under the light of sidechains next to words like merged mining and 2wp you delusion yourself into thinking they have changed and are more dangerous when in fact they are the same as they ever were. In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain? if not, do you want it to be? Bitcoin the currency will never leave Bitcoin the Blockchain, even with sidechains. Sidechains just gives you more potential uses for your Bitcoins.... locking them gains you tokens that have added functionality. I haven't heard a compelling case why we need those other functionalities. What's wrong with Bitcoin as it i? How about 7tps? Maybe, maybe not. No one knows but it certainly isn't a problem now. And if it becomes one, why not innovate on Mc ? |
|
|
|
In your opinion is BTC the currency separate from Bitcoin the Blockchain?
if not, do you want it to be?
Separate as in one existing without the other? Of course not. But this is not the same as saying BTC can't move around and be used on other sidechains. Yes it is. Those SC's are fundamentally different with different properties and security. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
