Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.
I don't believe that is the goal here ie. Liquid transactions are not settled on the blockchain unless the coins need to be moved off-exchange to a user wallet. |
|
|
|
Again: this is an attempt at pushing transactions actually occuring off-chain (centralized) into a decentralized blockchain for the benefit of every Bitcoin users that trades on exchange.
Is it really decentralised if Blockstream are the only people running the chain? Or am I misunderstanding that detail? Blockstream people are not the ones running the chain, the exchanges are. Of course it is not as decentralized as Bitcoin is but there are several issues with merged mining that need to be reconciled before deployment. The logic is that exchange users already trust them with their funds, Liquid attempts to diminish this trust by distributing the trust across the different fiduciary nodes in the sidechain. I see. This would be much better if merge mined; providing a diverse range of participants with a (newfound) diverse range of incentives to mine could strengthen the ecosystem, and disincentivise any possible collusion on the private chain (although not sure how feasible that is right now). Sounds balanced enough to make it worth any trade offs for now, though. So, couldn't a decentralised exchange become a collective participant on behalf of it's users? I don't think a fully decentralised exchange is online yet, but I hope the protocol behind Liquid could allow something like that. That kind of capability would be another important part of proving that Liquid isn't implicitly an invite-only chain (either you're a licensed exchange or you're not, so that would be essentially a proxy privilege system) The issue with merged-mining is you need a super-majority of the hashing power to securely deploy the chain. If you don't have that it would be trivially suspect to attacks for large non-cooperating miners. It's a hard sell and I suspect unless a sidechain directly benefits a very large majority of Bitcoin users it will be hard to gather such support. Moreover there certainly is a couple of legal issues with exchanges funds being, in some way, vulnerable to unidentified entities (miners). |
|
|
|
Ok guys you need to slow the roll.
The way I see it people already have a choice to trust Bitcoin the network or trust 3rd parties to keep their bitcoins safe and the vast majority of Bitcoin users have chosen to use 3rd parties. The one thing I have learned from my many failed attempts to introduce bitcoin the people is that they don't want to take on the responsibility (and risk) of protecting there own coins. People are inherently more trusting in other peoples abilities then their own. This is human nature. This however dose not blur the line between Bitcoin and 3rd party participants, the line between Bitcoin and these 3rd party players is as clear as ever. These side chains will need to be secured and managed by the 3rd parties that operate them.
This is not Bitcoin changing or being taken over. This is a experiment to draw users away from the main chain into a separate Eco-systems very similar to bitcoin but not bitcoin.
(I am a 1MBTC block size supporter, I support all users using full node clients over VPNs like the TOR network)
I agree with most of what you said but I don't see this as an attempt to draw people toward more centralized services. It's actually a step forward toward diminishing the need to trust third-party services which, whether we like are or not, are an integral part of Bitcoin's ecosystem. |
|
|
|
Again: this is an attempt at pushing transactions actually occuring off-chain (centralized) into a decentralized blockchain for the benefit of every Bitcoin users that trades on exchange.
Is it really decentralised if Blockstream are the only people running the chain? Or am I misunderstanding that detail? Blockstream people are not the ones running the chain, the exchanges are. Of course it is not as decentralized as Bitcoin is but there are several issues with merged mining that need to be reconciled before deployment. The logic is that exchange users already trust them with their funds, Liquid attempts to diminish this trust by distributing it across the different fiduciary nodes in the sidechain. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would you rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently use in order to move their clients coins? and fluctuates, how many variables are we going to tie to an exchange? Like I said a sidechain is essentially an altcoin so if ExchangeChain is released and it is it's own crypto it will be traded for a value and speculated on, how are exchanges supposed to handle this? From their announcement, it looks like they have already made partner agreements with several exchanges, so it appears that they ARE going to use this. Blockstream has announced Bitcoin’s first production Sidechain Liquid in collaboration with a limited number of partners including prominent Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin, and Xapo. The Company is holding talks with at least a dozen more major institutional traders and licensed Bitcoin exchanges.
Yes they have partners but it doesn't say they will be using that instead of their centralized logs. They are probably going to be selling liquid for BTC or USD, you are just assuming they will be using liquid as their internal system. Is this a joke? Do you even understand what Liquid is? |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. If Bitcoin has 8MB Blockstream can fit more transactions in their sidechains without the arduous work of developing more advanced cryptography to reduce the size of their transactions. Their new commercial product, Liquid, is an attempt at moving transactions which were already all happening off-chain, in centralized databases, to a more secure, distributed system where users will benefit from more liquidity, faster settlements, better privacy. Again: this is an attempt at pushing transactions actually occuring off-chain (centralized) into a decentralized blockchain for the benefit of every Bitcoin users that trades on exchange. |
|
|
|
 Dude has completely it  Does he even realize what he is saying  As if that's not what they were doing all along |
|
|
|
Yes, Blockstream is working hard to push users away from the permisionless bitcoin blockchain to their private permissioned sidechains to make a profit.
Things are getting ugly.
This would be totally fine and understandable, except... They interfered with the 8MB debate. AND, they used dirty tricks too. They used censorship. They used DDOS. They SLAMMED Gavin. Everyone has the right to build useful added services. However, Blockstream had a huge personal interest to crush 8MB - and they did. This was probably against the overall good of Bitcoin. Are you the newest paid retard sponsored to spread lies and misinformation known and documented facts here? You need to update your talking points. FTFY No shit. Totally known and well documented. Theymos is fully bullshit when it comes to censorship of things he doesn't agree with. Blockstream is 100% out of business if 8MB comes. Those guys only block BIP101 to cause a greater need for their for-fee permissioned side chain. Fact. Don't believe me? Look it up on Factum. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan. You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? Yes and I also do understand that most Core devs are being on the Blockstream pay roll and are not interested to make the bitcoin permissionless blockchain scalable so their company can make a profit. Thanks. Quite the opposite, they have to create viable commercial products in order to generate revenues so that they can continue to get paid for the numerous innovations and scaling progress they bring tot the Bitcoin ecosystem. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently do in order to move their clients coins? We perfectly understand that this first sidechain requires permission to use it. Thanks. You do realize that this is a commercial service, that these exchanges are free to use or not, at will, right? You're really asking too much from him... |
|
|
|
Yes, Blockstream is working hard to push users away from the permisionless bitcoin blockchain to their private permissioned sidechains to make a profit.
Things are getting ugly.
This would be totally fine and understandable, except... They interfered with the 8MB debate. AND, they used dirty tricks too. They used censorship. They used DDOS. They SLAMMED Gavin. Everyone has the right to build useful added services. However, Blockstream had a huge personal interest to crush 8MB - and they did. This was probably against the overall good of Bitcoin. Are you the newest paid retard sponsored to spread lies and misinformation known and documented facts here? You need to update your talking points. FTFY I'm all ears: show me the "known and documented facts" for Blockstream "using dirty tricks", censorship, DDOS. |
|
|
|
I hate sidechains, they seem like taking a step backwards. These sidechains are just Altcoins with a different name, you don't magically get coins on them you have to buy them and most are going to be shitchains just like all the shitcoins out there. Be weary of this and don't run off and invest in whatever sidecoin comes around screaming it's the future, remember it's just an altcoin.
Yes, ignorants are usually scared of what they don't understand Would you rather prefer that exchanges remain dependent on centralized databases, which they currently use in order to move their clients coins? |
|
|
|
^ Meh. Guess you know for sure the forum / population has changed when a (relative) newcomer account blocks (justified or not, doesn't matter) a bunch of posters that have been here from day one.
for someone who has been here from day one billyjoeallen is probably as clueless as they come so I wouldn't even blame newbies for ignoring him. |
|
|
|
Yes, Blockstream is working hard to push users away from the permisionless bitcoin blockchain to their private permissioned sidechains to make a profit.
Things are getting ugly.
This would be totally fine and understandable, except... They interfered with the 8MB debate. AND, they used dirty tricks too. They used censorship. They used DDOS. They SLAMMED Gavin. Everyone has the right to build useful added services. However, Blockstream had a huge personal interest to crush 8MB - and they did. This was probably against the overall good of Bitcoin. Are you the newest paid retard sponsored to spread lies and misinformation here? You need to update your talking points. |
|
|
|
seem to recall, several years ago, an announcement by some exchange that they were implementing "shadow" book orders, that are invisible to most ordinary clients. Perhaps they just started showing shadow-book trades on the ordinary ticker, to boost their public volume numbers...
That seems to be what's happening. But why would they want a lot of off book transactions? Don't they make money based on a percentage of the order cost? Why would they not want the price to rise as much as possible? OKCoin and Huobi do not charge fees for trading, only for deposit and/or withdrawal, and interest on leveraged trading. As I recall, the shadow book was meant to cater for clients who wanted to trade on the exchange, but did not want their large orders to affect the price against them. (I may have misunderstood, and I don't know whether that makes sense.) It's hard to see responses between all these ChartBuddys. Thanks, I think they would be better for all if we could actually see the effects of the trades that are happening. Right, so we are supposed to belive that while BFX volume has continued at an a consistent mostly anaemic pace for the last 2 months, OKC and Huobi have a bunch of 50k BTC orders that they suddenly decided to announce in their volume figures ...OK .... <sips Kool Aid> .... perfectly reasonable explanation. Oh wait ...no announcement from an exchange that is being accused of faking numbers that they have a valid reason for suddenly higher numbers. OK ... <sips more> that makes perfect sense  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... most likely explanation is 'it's definitely not a duck'  it's clear enough by now that these exchanges are bucket shop status, especially BitFinex |
|
|
|
|
Every time I add to my Bitcoin stash I feel like it is one of the very best decision I can make in my life.
|
|
|
|
Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!
tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?
Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.
AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.
What is to stop them hard forking?
You can't be serious.... Do you know what a hard fork is? I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything. You know what you are right, I forgot that nodes have to relay blocks not just transactions.
That could be a problem then!
Don't mind me just preserving that for posterity |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain. I think icebreaker missed that part: What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party. The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does niot live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users. Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions. Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this. Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved. Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be. lol this is blatantly false and you know it. Ive already gone through all of this with you on why andd how bitcoin is a settlement system.. Yup but it didn't make any sense from any economic point of view and none actual bitcoin financial institutions want this anyway. http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/So it won't happen and bitcoin will be forked out at some point. What a lame with his fiat companies How many of these have positive cash flow denominated in Bitcoin? Completely irrelevant comment. Irrelevant? I don't see how. These companies are irrelevant yes since most of them are only banking parasites trying to fit Bitcoin into their paradigm attempting to create closed gardens they can control.Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.
Enough said. You are completely disconnected from reality and contradicting yourself. Oh sorry it didn't know you had never heard of open-source |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
