I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great. A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention. But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited. Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange. Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff. Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation. Financial incentive: Exactly! We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does. In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token. Trivial example: you could create a document registration company. Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time. To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained. And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam. Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court. Sounds like not much money? But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t. "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement. Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system. Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly. But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten. re: scalability. but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address. Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...). |
|
|
|
I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check. And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin. Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up. Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev. You don't need permission. Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.
And there's another thing that I like about sidechains. Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited. And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.
look at the JLevin article i just put up. he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump. And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.
so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token? How about to provide a service via that sidechain that is paid for in BTC pegged currency? I'd much rather innovate to earn BTC than innovate and then have to worry about bootstrapping a currency. |
|
|
|
Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology. So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with. Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.
ok. thanks for the clarification. The paper reference a more detailed description of atomic swaps here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949Unfortunately that doesn't address my question, which is specifically: how do we check if the random number chosen by A is known? Verifying signatures is obviously supported, but how do you go about first requiring a number be known without already knowing it (hash it I'd guess), and then what OP code do you use to verify it? |
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology. So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with. Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.
|
|
|
|
If you were Bill Gates or Sir Branson, how much money would you get in BTC? I'd probably send $40 million over to Bitstamp  That'll get you around 111,100BTC at today's rate Don't know about Gatesy but think Brando already picked up and currently bagholding  Bill Gates is already at the stage where he doesnt give a fuck about money (as in getting more of it) so I doubt he's going to be here watching to see the highs and lows but he's said favourable things about the tech model and sir Richard Branson as a billionaire doesn't need the money either but he is happily accepting them for his space tour flights and probably even hodling them since he would have no need to cash out into fiat anytime soon lol that's an interesting discussion but did you know that this year alone there were more new billionaires than ever before? I'd bet the first thought of many new billionaires is: "now I must make sure to remain billionaire" which means they are going to buy some bitcoins and that's a cold hard proven theory! Branson is worth around 5 billion I think but he owns a lot of stuff that generates revenue every year I was very happily surprised to see him getting into Bitcoin in its relative infancy but he obviously sees the potential in it He's right more often than he's wrong and he didn't get 5 billion by being dumb Branson does not care about Bitcoin or believe in it at all. They immediately swap Bitcoin into fiat at Virgin. They do accept Bitcoin because that would allow their customers to pay without audit and its a publicity stunt. Branson did not make his billions investing in speculative stuff. He has a freakin spaceship and there is nothing speculative about that kind of business. If there is nothing speculative in spaceflight, then why did his spaceship crash last week? |
|
|
|
In this scheme, there will be only BTC buying with the fiat at exchanges. No BTC is sold to the market. Only scBTC is sold to the market but people believe the notion of the peg so they pay the same for them as they would for BTC (because after all they can be redeemed for BTC with only a 100 block delay in spend-ability).
Endgame is there are a lot of the scBTC created, reducing BTC liquidity and pumping the BTC fiat price... until it unwinds.
There is no peg.
There is no spoon.
Here is what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario : If, as you say, people believe in the peg (which they absolutely should) then they will not buy your scBTC. In reality, the market has no incentive to purchase your scBTC over BTC if they are the same price. The reason for this? Well you have suggested it yourself : the "block delay in spend-ability". What makes the best money? The most cost effective and versatile exchangeable asset. BTC is more easily exchangeable with fiat (because of liquidity) and other scBTCs than scBTC is and is also more cost-effective at doing so. No matter the 1:1 fiat peg, BTC is a more desirable unit than scBTC. BTC has better fungibility and liquidity in the economy than scBTC. Here is where you are flatly wrong. There clearly is an incentive, the time incentive. To change BTC to scBTC, you will have to wait for 100 blocks or so, whatever the confirmation time may be. If you buy them at exchange, there is no wait. This confirmation exchange value is created in both ways in the transaction. People will pay a premium for time, localbitcoin pricing is evidence enough of this. Maybe I'm wrong but don't the atomic swaps described in the paper remove "the time incentive"? Am I missing something obvious? Atomic swaps don't involve BTC, they involve scBTC and an altcoin that also exists on the sidechain along with the scBTC. |
|
|
|
....
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? Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block. you mean the SC block? yes, don't these SPV proofs require 2 tx's each, one in MC and one in SC? Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction. The headers prove the transaction was added to a block. (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).
there is no section 8 What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins. If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.
i asked you before about this contest period. what is the probability of an attacker constructing a fake proof in either direction. what is this all about? isn't this a fundamental change to how Bitcoin blocks are linked together? We require a change to Bitcoin so that rather than each blockheader committing only to the
header before it, it commits to every one of its ancestors. Yes a SC block. Yes, there needs to be a destroy transaction on SC and a SPV proof on MC. Did you try looking between sections 7 and 9? That's where I found section 8. (Hint, page 5). An attacker can only fake a proof if they can fake a block, so it is up to the security model of the sidechain. Can you put that quote in context (where is it in which whitepaper?).... I'm not sure quite what they are referring to. pg 20 Implementation why would an attacker have to fake a block when faking a SPV proof (tx)? blocks are created by miners... still don't see a section 8 on pg 5 A cursory rereading of that section still leaves me with some questions, but I'll try to remember to come back and look into the reference Pug90 when I'm not busy. An SPV proof is a tx + block headers that prove the tx has been accepted by SC miners. They can't fake a proof without forging the transaction into a SC block. bitcoin.pdf section 8 |
|
|
|
....
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? Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block. you mean the SC block? yes, don't these SPV proofs require 2 tx's each, one in MC and one in SC? Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction. The headers prove the transaction was added to a block. (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).
there is no section 8 What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins. If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.
i asked you before about this contest period. what is the probability of an attacker constructing a fake proof in either direction. what is this all about? isn't this a fundamental change to how Bitcoin blocks are linked together? We require a change to Bitcoin so that rather than each blockheader committing only to the
header before it, it commits to every one of its ancestors. Yes a SC block. Yes, there needs to be a destroy transaction on SC and a SPV proof on MC. Did you try looking between sections 7 and 9? That's where I found section 8. (Hint, page 5). An attacker can only fake a proof if they can fake a block, so it is up to the security model of the sidechain. Can you put that quote in context (where is it in which whitepaper?).... I'm not sure quite what they are referring to. |
|
|
|
I miss GPUMAX  me too |
|
|
|
....
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? Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block. Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction. The headers prove the transaction was added to a block. (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf). What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins. If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction. |
|
|
|
....
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. |
|
|
|
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. Even if we pretend you aren't full of shit, how does that even come close to answering my simple question? You clearly don't want to have a reasonable discussion. |
|
|
|
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. But doesn't that hurt the incentive structure for miners? Now we have to store more information, use more bandwidth and cpu to handle more transactions, decreasing the subsidy/"resource expenditure". Block scarcity will also decrease, keeping transaction fees low. As a miner, I'll take replacing a NOOP with a contestable SPV proof over raising the block size any day of the week. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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. Precisely. To consider sidechains and think only of sidecoins booted on top of it is so ass-backward and stupid I don't know where to begin. Wow, you seem so certain of this. Can we see the research on this? Both technical and economic? Because if you're wrong, we're all going to lose a lot of money. But it sounds like you'd like us all to just trust your judgment. No, I'd prefer if you would read up on the technologies involved and come to the same conclusion yourself, but you'd rather engage with trolls and spread misinformation and hyperbolic hypotheticals. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Australia is currently in a housing bubble...when that pops your stocks will crash with it.
More into gold and bitcoin. Hold until about 3 years after the housing bubble pops...buy a house for almost nothing.
Austria != Australia |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
