Crypto Kingdom (and Monero) feature in the second section of today's LetsTalkBitcoin episode. http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/category/the-bitcoin-gameIt went live at 4:20p today. 10000 listeners on average. ...So more bidders on these early assets may show up. Forsooth! Get yours whilst the getting is goodly, sire. Hence, I will purchase 25 shares since this inside information is now public. |
|
|
|
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 share the hope but not the expectation. When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account.... Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin? How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this? There are a lot of these people. Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work. ...and that they own gold if they have some GLD. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?
GLD is an exchange traded fund without any leverage. Some allege they do not have full backing but outside of a conspiracy theory I think we can assume they do keep the gold they are supposed to. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is in the S-1 filings. Physical Gold leaves the ETF every day sold for costs, and to compensate the sponsors of the ETF, taxes on which are paid by the ETF holders. Bitcoin ETP uses the same model. The Merk ETF has one of the lightest touches of this type at 0.4% per year, but even so, it compounds over years. The older the trust, the less percentage it holds in actual goods. The ETFs are good for liquidity and trading, but not at all good for the sort of generational holding that gold (and bitcoin) may serve so well. They are also good for "retirement account" type investment vehicles which are not really intended to survive the investor/spouse. |
|
|
|
Land, Land, Land
The citizens in the Kingdom have much stone, but the land ownership and building regulations in the center and north chapelries are, in a word, centralized. So that we would not need to change the regulations, we are opening new land for building!  So as is visible in the City Map, the area to the west of the current city core, is in the process of being opened up. This is the area where the new Citadel will also be located, and large part is therefore reserved for it, as well as the Jousting ground for Knights. The area of the Two Springs is getting increasing protection. I will donate all my stone for this noble cause. HM may select any lots at his pleasure and these will be built to spec by those that are able to engage our architects. |
|
|
|
So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.
lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security, faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.
What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?
owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out. so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out? don't know for sure but you can bet on it. this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from? GLD buys it and stores it in a vault. I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio? ETF aren't typically 1:1 because there are costs of management and they pay themselves and their legal fees out of the fund. This is from the Winklevoss ETP s-1 filing with the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm#tx562329_19(the "sponsors" are a wholly owned company by the Winklevoss) The Sponsor’s Fee will accrue daily and will be payable in kind (in Bitcoins) monthly in arrears. To pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Trust will transfer Bitcoins from the Trust Custody Account to an account maintained by the Trustee for the Sponsor (“Sponsor Custody Account”). The Sponsor, from time to time, may waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee at its discretion for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to continue a waiver after the end of such stated period, and, if such waiver is not continued, the Sponsor’s Fee will thereafter be paid in full. Presently, the Sponsor does not intend to waive any of its fee. The Trustee will from time to time deliver to the Sponsor Custody Account Bitcoins in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of the Sponsor’s Fee. The Trustee may from time to time transfer from the Trust Custody Account and deliver to a segregated account of the Trustee (“Trust Expense Account”) Bitcoins for sale in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. Accordingly, the number of Bitcoins to be transferred and sold will vary from time to time depending on the level of the Trust’s expenses and the Blended Bitcoin Price. See “Business of the Trust—Trust Expenses.”
Each delivery or transfer of Bitcoins by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses will be a taxable event to Shareholders. |
|
|
|
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
This section 8: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfReferring to the headers. Apologies if this was answered answered previously. |
|
|
|
don't forget that Blockstream is a risk as well.
Good point. I'd likely have put that in the confidence category. The conflict of interest is a bit tragic. I am hopeful that it would get resolved sooner rather than later. It is sort of a weird one. Its like some operating system team members are leaving to go work on "InstallShield" (remember that?). Historically, in security software development, the installer is the principle place to introduce vulnerabilities. Owning the installer is a privileged position as it is the engine of feature distribution, and the closest persistent connection to "the customer". So I am kind of glad that it is these guys doing it. But they shouldn't be doing both. I'm not an insider there and don't know the technology perimeter of their company. I just really wish that there were more folks doing what they do so that we didn't have to suffer through these sort of conflicts. |
|
|
|
The problem that me, and seemingly a couple others, have with Cypherdoc's concerns is that most of them boil down to the creation of altcoins, something that sidechains did not introduce and do little to enable. I hope you have come to understand this part because the accusation that you make of SC proponents being "unreasonable" can equally be applied to most, if not all, of the SC opponents in this thread.
You seem to be a reasonable person who has a great ability to distill his ideas in thoughtful and concise manners. Maybe you want to share with us notable weaknesses of the 2wp and what considerable risks you can foresee?
I don't know that there are any SC opponents in this thread. I also don't claim there are any weaknesses in the SPV mechanism, and find it weird that you would see that anywhere in anything I wrote. I like SC's, I think it works and does pretty much what it says it does is the blockstream white paper. There are however risks, some of which have been discussed here already. Most of the more interesting risks fall into two main categories. 1) Economic risks (changes to miner incentives, centralization issues, and practical concerns, ZB's is one of these) 2) Confidence risks (both "cons" in the scam sense, and misplaced confidence in the mechanism as a panacea, or else misplaced confidence in any particular SC - what you call the altcoin risk, and loss of confidence in Bitcoin generally due to its new ease of change). As mentioned upthread, the SC mods present a new upgrade path. Introducing upgrade paths is something to do carefully, and I like that there is this discussion to work through some of the more obvious issues. There are all sorts of dystopian varieties of these two categories. Some may imagine a distant future where with a click of a button (or it is done automatically) where one upgrades their bitcoins from Bitcoin 17.4 to 17.5 moving to yet another new chain, and something goes horribly wrong and they find themselves on Central Banker Inflation Coin of something. Or what is more likely historically, they do this willfully because the news is telling them that it is necessary to do it for their survival in the new important war of the day. Edit: there is a 3rd category of risk, technical risks (of which SPV brokenness would be an example, but these haven't been much discussed here). |
|
|
|
Its pretty exhausting because it is difficult to determine what you are trying to communicate.
This post in particular is merely self contradictory rhetoric. It doesn't contain any reasoned arguments.
Parse it yourself and you will see...
Either (a) side chains have no capability to "mess with" Bitcoin, or (b) they are empowered to improve, ensure preservation, and adaptability...
Then, you claim to know the purpose of side chains. As if there is only one purpose that *the people* that create side chains can have. This is an outlandishly impossible claim to make.
Followed by another self contradiction. Either (a) side chains do not change the incentive structure, or (b) they improve it. Both of these can not be true.
I think you should just stop advocating for side chains. You are a bad spokesperson for the cause. People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself.
I knew this would be your argument, and yes, I can see how it might sound contradictory. Adrian's use of those terms, "mess with" and "change", were made in a notably pejorative way. My point is that these changes are, IMO, for the better. Someone could have a different opinion but while you accuse me of not making sense, the same could be said of much of the arguments made against SC so far in this thread. I also think they are for the better, when done successfully and by people of good will. In much the same way that a software "upgrade" is not always better than its predecessor. It may require more resource or implement a nasty form or DRM or who knows what. Usually they are better, but not always. What SC does is a great thing. I have strongly advocated them myself to both developers and investors. I don't like is seeing them misrepresented as something they aren't. It is mostly a method of "upgrading" a crypto currency. Some but not all upgrades are beneficial, only most of them are. The really insanely great thing about them is that they deal with the ossification issue in a market sensitive way. If you like the old version and don't want the "upgrade" you don't have to take it. Or you can try it out for a while and move back without much cost. |
|
|
|
Congratulations, in 3 years on this board I've never once put someone on ignore because I usually like to hear what others have to say even if I disagree. But you are the first. It was a feat, you should be proud.
Thanks for that, your pedantry was becoming tiresome. I think we both understand the mechanism of side chains. For anyone else reading this I hope they aren't further confused by your explanation. The block chains are the ledgers, there are as many ledgers as there are block chains. Side chains create new block chains, each with their own ledger which are reconciled through what is being called a 2 way peg (though that is also an inaccurate term for the mechanism). Merging ledgers would be a destructive process where one block chain would then be abandoned afterwards. I don't think you are meaning that is what is happening, because that would be incorrect. I know gmaxwell likes the term 2-way peg from his explanation of this last December, I didn't much care for the term then either. It is a useful shorthand, but it is going to confuse folks once this stuff catches on. It is probably important to recognize that these are different units of account as well. Otherwise there would be no need for the SPVs (and the term peg would be completely meaningless if there were only one unit of account). |
|
|
|
Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.
Scams depress price. Alt scams, exchange scams, pirate@40 scams, these all depress price, reduce confidence, encourage regulation, and suck wealth and productive resources out of the crypto economy. SC scams should be expected to do likewise. |
|
|
|
All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.
I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.
Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with. Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains. You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned This one is amazing. Practically every other sentence contradicts each other. instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions" Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications. "There is one ledger" Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin. Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain. Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them. No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently. The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case. There is one Bitcoin ledger. There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains. So how many does that make? (hint >1) Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write. I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words. |
|
|
|
that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?
I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it? yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.
Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them. With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying. I would expect some-but-not-all would be MM'd. There may easily be side chains that are not profitable to MM, and some that can't be MM'd with MC, but like you I would expect any SC miner that can MM with MC would do so (and continue mining Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
LOL, of course the notion of 2wp and the cryptography used to accomplish it are different things. That is however orthagonal to the point that the cryptography used to accomplish it does matter, it matters quite a bit.
Here are some simple ways that it matters, there are many others.
1) It is either compatible with the ASICs used for MC mining, or not (this matters for merge mining potential).
2) It is either using a key escrow or not (this would allow the initiator of the side chain to seize any of the side chain that doesn't comply with its rules - like the govSC discussed earlier).
3) It is either a well established cryptographc algorithm or not.
4) The algorithm uses cryptographic primitives which are either compromised or not.
5) The algorithm is either conducive to a PoW structure, or not.
If what you mean by "it doesn't matter what crypto SC will use" is that SC can use any crypto, good bad or ugly, then we agree. I would just suggest that it does matter whether the crypto is good bad or ugly.
This is so obvious to anyone reading this thread I'm not sure why it deserves to be mentioned. Did you somehow think it escaped us that some SC could be used for nefarious purposes? That we believe ALL SC should be trusted? This is possibly the rudest "I agree with you" statement I've seen in a while, but thank you.  Yes, I was concerned it had escaped you. Pretty much the content of most of your posts in this thread led to the conclusion that you are ignoring some very important details. When I see someone blindly advocating, it makes me curious just how blind they are. Especially when there are explicit statements saying things like "it doesn't matter what crypto is used" (which you didn't write, but the person to whom that response was written did). |
|
|
|
Report: Obama Administration Pressured News Outlets to Not Report Suspected Ebola CasesIn case you haven’t noticed… Media outlets are no longer reporting on suspected Ebola cases at the urging of the Obama administration. Downtrend reported: There is a reason why Obama didn’t pick an Ebola Czar with any actual medical experience when he tabbed longtime Democrat party hack Ron Klain who is a lobbyist. The real danger was never that the foolish policies of Barry and the boys were exposing Americans to Ebola but rather the political implications of it all. So the sudden departure of Ebola stories from the state-corporate media doesn’t pass the smell test. Interestingly the website of Forbes has a story that reports: The Associated Press and other press outlets have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed.That damning line is buried deep in the article so anyone can be excused for not noticing it – they aren’t supposed to. http://downtrend.com/donn-marten/obama-regime-puts-lipstick-on-a-pig-election-day-scrubbed-of-ebola/ With whom are they agreeing? This was expected. As a political calculation, this is a no-brainer. Authoritarianism wins if ebola becomes pervasive. If the New York waste disposal washes ebola vomit into the sewer and the rats start spreading it, or it lives on the sewer pond scum and everyone runs to their government for help, and hands the government the authority over their health care.... The politics of it make sense. Frankly... I do agree with this non-reporting on individual tests generally. I'm of the opinion that personal health issues are personal. However if someone voluntarily goes to the press and lets them know that they are being tested for ebola there ought be no constraint on the press for sharing that information other than their normal fact checking. Anything else is a prior restraint on the press = censorship. |
|
|
|
....
Then we agree. Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters. |
|
|
|
You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase. I can't understand what you mean. Your statement: Again, I don't know if the 2wp using SPV could work as defined, but if they to, SC would solve all the problems Bitcoin has today and guarantee his success in the way forward.
Side chains per se, do not solve all the problems Bitcoin has today, nor are they a guarantee of anything. What they are is a mechanism. They may have the potential to solve problems. That will depend entirely on what people do with them. They are another tool in the tool belt. It can be used to build or destroy. The existence of this mechanism does not guarantee the success of Bitcoin. It would be nice if it did, and we could all just sit back and wait for the magic to happen. Instead there is a new tool, a new mechanism. It may be used by all sorts of people, and groups. This is great, it is the nature of open source collaboration. However we must recognize that only some people may share common goals with you or me, and others may not. And you may not know whether any particular SC creator does or doesn't. There may be wolves in alpaca clothing. These are the sorts of things that I (and presumably CypherDoc and others) consider with caution. What makes this even more of a concern is when we see these posts that essentially say "there is nothing to worry about", "this fixes everything" or "the details of the cryptography don't matter". Those sort of statements are either (a) just misunderstood word choices (and something else was meant by the author), or (b) maybe the author is simply misguided or exuberant , or (c) perhaps they may be malicious attempts to misguide others. If it is (a) it tends to get more clear with some attention. If (b) it is worrisome that there are going to be coming disappointments when the hoped for effects don't materialize, and (c) is just expected and is dealt with in much the same way as (a). What you wrote here below is sensible. We may disagree on some matters of preference, but I like that you say what side chains "can" do rather than what they "will" do. It is important to understand that they can be used and also can be abused. I think Cypherdoc is understanding the function and capabilities pretty well. I also think his caution is reasonable. Some SC may be great and solve some problems...And I think that there will be some SC that end up costing some people a LOT of their hard earned bitcoin due to fraud, misrepresentation, and blind trust. So when I see folks saying "everything is great, Side Chains are here to save us" type stuff, all the red flags go up. I try to use high-level reasoning, for example giving for granted that making "trustless 2wp" is possible (we can't be completely sure, for now).
So, looking at the cryptomoney ecosystem I see that Bitcoin has a clear advantage to any other coin, mainly due to network effect and infrastructure built around it, and that's good.
But there are a lot of new coins coming out, and apart from some stupid copycats (most of them), some innovation is being done in the field.
I don't want to have 10 or even only 3 different coins which share the market (and hence bitcoin capitalisation and liquidity), each one filling some gap that bitcoin can't cover (or that it does badly), I would prefer Bitcoin to be "the perfect money".
Now, we know we need to be very, very conservative on the changes to the core protocol because the possibility of breakage, even when minuscule, can cause enormous problems, so we need to research and thoroughly test new ideas before they can be imported in Bitcoin.
Also, almost everyone agrees on the fact that Bitcoin development is too centralized, with a few actors having much greater role of any others in pushing some set of changes.
So, the only way left are lobbying the developers (and we don't want that), or creating completely new altcoins that has to compete with Bitcoin and anyway take liquidity and market cap from it.
Also, even if remote, there is the risk that one of these altcoin, if backed by a big corp like amazon, apple, microsoft & C could really be a Bitcoin competitor in the future: Bitcoin actual market cap is tiny even compared to the size of one the big player market cap.
How to permit innovation in Bitcoin land without some small group of people could veto them for whatever reason it is?
And for innovation in Bitcoin I mean for example: better anonymity, higher TPS, better security, more decentralized mining, and certainly NOT the raising on the maximum number of existing bitcoin units and their distribution.
I think that SC can solve this problem: it maintains what is the good of bitcoin (cap on the coins, their distribution and security for who does not want to use new features) and enable permissionless innovation for everybody who want to give it a try.
If a SC which is completely better than Bitcoin under every aspect can arise, so be it: that will be a better money for everybody, and it can grow up bit by bit without disrupting bitcoin market, infrastructure and its market cap.
Alternatively, a SC which is better than Bitcoin under only some aspects and not all of them will give more value to the whole ecosystem without any drawback: only who is interested in it uses it without taking anything to any other.
I'm unable to envision a way for a SC to destroy Bitcoin, except for the case that we already knows: altcoins.
Every time I read cypherdoc on the subject I'm unable to understand the kind of threat he sees, and it seems to me simply that he is missing the point of what a 2wp gives us.
I'll continue to read the thread with interest to better understand these kind of scenarios, if any, I thank everybody for their contribution to the matter.
|
|
|
|
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?
New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC. It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto) example: SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins) - there is not digital ledger in couponSC - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed. Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins. Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC. Again " It does not matters what crypto will SC use. " Yes... it does matter. If a SC uses a compromised crypto, say one that incorporates key escrow, then the one with the escrowed keys can redeem the bitcoin that have been sent to the side chain. Advocating for blind trust of all SC just on the merits that they are SC, is not a service to your readers. There are 2 different things. 2wp(escrow), and side-blockchain crypto LOL, of course the notion of 2wp and the cryptography used to accomplish it are different things. That is however orthagonal to the point that the cryptography used to accomplish it does matter, it matters quite a bit. Here are some simple ways that it matters, there are many others. 1) It is either compatible with the ASICs used for MC mining, or not (this matters for merge mining potential). 2) It is either using a key escrow or not (this would allow the initiator of the side chain to seize any of the side chain that doesn't comply with its rules - like the govSC discussed earlier). 3) It is either a well established cryptographc algorithm or not. 4) The algorithm uses cryptographic primitives which are either compromised or not. 5) The algorithm is either conducive to a PoW structure, or not. If what you mean by "it doesn't matter what crypto SC will use" is that SC can use any crypto, good bad or ugly, then we agree. I would just suggest that it does matter whether the crypto is good bad or ugly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
