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 think instead brg444 did a great job answering a lot of the criticism related to sidechains. As for myself I've some reserves on them too, but they are more about the technical side of the things, for example that the SPV proofs can work. It may and should work as advertised, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to verify all the calculations. But if we take for granted that the math is ok (as this thread seems doing), I find the critics of this thread mostly dumb. Cypherdoc in primis seems to be completely without any clue, and I find this a bit strange. 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.SC can save Bitcoin from competing and possibly better altcoins and give it the possibility to evolve as the market requires without requiring all Bitcoin participants to agree on every new feature that has to be added to the core protocol. Heck, even the raise of the block limit fails to find a consensus in the Bitcoin community, and that should be an easy one. ugh. Worse than snake-oil peddlers. You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase. The problem that you share with brg444 is that you not only make claims which are unsubstantiated and too grand, you also encourage discounting of reasonable risks and concerns. This "answers" criticism without explaining it, which should not be your goal if you are looking for agreement with your position. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Sidechains are there to create new applications/features that are not possible on the Bitcoin chain. There's no reason why you would create a sidecoin on top because it defeats the whole purpose of the 2wp.
Unless that is the reason. |
|
|
|
|
The town of Los Angeles, California, was originally named "El Pueblo la Nuestra Senora de Reina de los Angeles de la Porciuncula"
|
|
|
|
Because metal was scarce, the Oscars given out during World War II were made of wood.
so jealous of that wooden oscars lol. must be a shitty feeling to do all that work for just some wood thing. It is also a false fun fact. The only wooden Oscars award was that given to Edgar Bergan (the famous Ventriloquist) in honor of his wooden dummy. (Oscars given our during WWII were made of plaster as part of the propaganda, there was enough metal) The plaster Oscars were replaced with the real ones later. |
|
|
|
|
Speaking only for myself.
I don't know what you are talking about.
What malaise? What apathy?
This is an extremely exciting time. There is a lot happening. Constantly busy with crypto issues and projects.
|
|
|
|
Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
in weighting the differences, your first point: there is only one application of SC that I understand as a threat to Bitcoin and that is an incentivised p2p decentralised competing means of exchange. The opportunities offered by SC are not limited to SC, there are other solutions that offer the same opportunities just less the decentralized competing means of exchange. NL I also get confused by your use of value are you talking about price yes, but not only this. I wear 2 hats,
hat 1) I am a looking out for my best interest in this context Value = I can exchange for more wealth. (this definition is related to price - bitcoins value fluctuates day to day) this is what I understand when I read it in the context you used it. ( the same motives that drive out financial system today)
hat 2) I am a member of a global community, in this context Value = the existence of a voluntarily adopted and self organizing incentive structure that creates a universal ledger of record used in exchanges of value.
when the two values are alined it means value for me, but when you talk about SC being a "side" "Chain", the global community ledger of value is degraded and my projections altered.
How Bitcoins incentives are arranged is the key principals of what makes Bitcoin valuable, not the price. I've been building the Global egalitarian ledger by contributing wealth as its principals have value in the border definition of global success.
i find it hard to see the value when enabling a decentralized competing means of exchange that alters the incentives that makes Bitcoin valuable - is it fair to call this creating value - it looks like the value is hat 1) type value, and that's not good for Bitcoin, if it compromises hat 2) type value.
I used the word "value" intentionally, rather than the word "price" to be meaning both 1) and 2) inclusively. Price, Utility, Efficacy... "virtue" |
|
|
|
If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.
cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks. And we'd leave behind those that can't or won't. |
|
|
|
Can they operate the pool server in another country and reside in US? Is that still be classified as US business? Can they close the pool connection to US citizen?
Not really a great option. If you have assets in the US, those assets are at risk. (This includes your fleshy freedom) The bitcoin are everywhere that you are. The US has laws against its citizens and businesses repatriating assets to avoid regulation. You have to have a legitimate business reason to do it (other than the regs). Even defending against such a case brought by the feds would be too expensive and too consuming to absorb the risk. The decision makes me sad for the US government. |
|
|
|
|
Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
|
|
|
|
"Remember Remember the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
On the 4th of November, the US votes.
What happens on the 5th?
The same thing as always, I presume: nothing changes. Probably so. There's this: https://www.facebook.com/millionmaskmarchBut marches are pedestrian. |
|
|
|
I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.
I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain... The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience. Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated). So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience. So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security. Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications. When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow. Nonsense! Enough hashrate for what? http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brixCurrent cost of 51% attack = $557,818,552 That is about the total value of ALL COINS TRANSACTED IN A DAY. https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=By what metric is this "not enough"? It could be just easily argued that it is "too much". Just how many double spends do you think could be pulled off before the hostile miners get isolated? |
|
|
|
it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.
Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty. He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.) The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know. I disagree here. Pretty much all of the concerns he cites are real risks, and not uncertainty or doubt. Whether they rise to the level of risk/reward is another calculation entirely. Some of us are comfortable with different levels of risk. That is what makes a market work. These may be acceptable risks for some, and not acceptable for others. Only a fool ignores real risks, the wise person mitigates them (or avoids them) to the extent that it is profitable to do so. To say that they simply don't exist, will make folks lose trust in the solution. |
|
|
|
I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.
I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain... The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience. Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated). So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience. So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security. |
|
|
|
Excellent news. I'm still waiting to see a game that fully uses the potential of cryptos
Take a look at Huntercoin (HUC). They are still a long way from a smoothly operating user experience, but the underlying POW incentives are there. Playing the game is how you mine and acquire coins. I don't think this is what he meant with "fully uses the potential". I think the MMORPG "Lyth" (powered by Nxt) is more the direction what he searches for. Lyth looks like it is going to be pretty cool. I like these games. There is also the "Crypto Kingdom" built on XMR, which is playable in its pre-release form now. Basically if you start Crypto Kingdom today, you get an easy path to nobility in the game and also get to be a stakeholder in it. In later phases, the game essentially becomes an XMR faucet. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=819073.0 |
|
|
|
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
Except that we know from experience that this is not true. MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC. Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better. it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev. This. As part of MC core dev, there is some control over the ossification. FWIW, I think these are good guys and I like/trust them just fine. Anyone can be subjected to coercive forces though. Not just greed coercion by gaining vast wealth, but gun to the head of your child or whatever can change one's mind about things. This is why conflicts of interest at centralization points are especially troubling. If you are in that position yourself, you may be putting those you care about at risk. That they would knowingly accept such conflicts of interest, leads me to question their wisdom. They may come to their senses yet. |
|
|
|
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage. I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC. How about answering the question? What about telling me what innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin. Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? ) for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster. QC? quantum computer :-) Thanks for disambiguating. I was thinking QC="Quality Control" and was pretty baffled as to what that would entail. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
