Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way. Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain. So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC. But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen? Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what. |
|
|
|
|
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
|
|
|
|
thank you. very very helpful. not at all. The discussion in this thread have moved way beyond the limited concepts in that paper. |
|
|
|
i think we've identified numerous potential problems in different scenarios in the last several pages that need answering. i'm not going to repeat them yet again.
all of your potential problems depend on the creation of a sidecoin when this is not the main use case of altCHAINS no it does not. I've been talking about SC ' s alone with 1:1 scBTC |
|
|
|
But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.
If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.
What if miners migrate to the sidechain diverting mining resources from bitcoin. Would this leave bitcoin exposed to a 51% attack? If a 51% attack were easy, then some of the conversion transactions could be reversed, leaving an imbalance of coins and screwing up the peg. Edit: I guess mining would be more or less pegged too. Miners could mine bitcoin, convert so SC and sell, at least as long as there was a mining reward. if i was a gvt, i'd fork the mainchain into an uberSC that employed a single beneficial factor over the mainchain, anonymity being the first one. now, as BldSwtTrs has said above, all current mainchain BTC tucked away in cold wallets all over the world will probably be cracked open out of greed and some out of necessity and sent to the uberSC. even tho the security at the moment might be risky, why not, as the paper has said that even in a SC failure you can get back into your BTC via the peg. all upside, no downside! which is it Greg, can we get back or can't we? assuming the paper is accurate, mining will be forced to transition/follow as well, but that is where the security holes start gaping wide open. as you said, attacks will made on the network causing double spends and loss of confidence. also, individual hodlers making the transition now risk identification and hacks. now, to amplify the attack as the gvt, i would deploy as many new single feature uberSC's as there are beneficial features with a divide and destroy objective. BTC and miners would be scrambling to different uberSC's they perceived gave them the most benefit only to be eventually destroyed by attacks as a result of less security for each uberSC during the transition. this is why, potentially, all innovation should be done on the mainchain with the current security model, hashing rate, and BTC distribution in place safely tucked away. |
|
|
|
FED buying stocks again?
markets are mind boggling
not really. i'm hoping and expecting the $DJT to go back up and make another high while the $DJI fails to do the same. that would be a Dow Theory non-confirmation which has been associated with the vast majority of stock market tops over the last 100 yrs. that's one of my markers:  |
|
|
|
From the paper - implies there is no risk of degraded sidechains. Also, that there is no real harm of a SC becoming more used than BTC because the side chain coins are backed by BTC:
---
Furthermore, because sidechains transfer existing assets from the parent chain rather than creating new ones, sidechains cannot cause unauthorised creation of coins, relying instead on the parent chain to maintain the security and scarcity of its assets.
Further still, participants do not need to be as concerned that their holdings are locked in a single experimental altchain, since sidechain coins can be redeemed for an equal number of parent chain coins. This provides an exit strategy, reducing harm from unmaintained software.
On the other hand, because sidechains are still blockchains independent of Bitcoin, they are free to experiment with new transaction designs, trust models, economic models, asset issuance semantics, or cryptographic features. We will explore many of the possibilities for sidechains further in Section 5.
An additional benefit to this infrastructure is that making changes to Bitcoin itself becomes much less pressing: rather than orchestrating a fork which all parties need to agree on and implement in tandem, a new “changed Bitcoin” could be created as a sidechain. If, in the medium term, there
were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure.
---
i think we've identified numerous potential problems in different scenarios in the last several pages that need answering. i'm not going to repeat them yet again. |
|
|
|
|
where the fuck is brg444 when we need him?
|
|
|
|
If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it. It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges. ^^This is how I understand it - the owner of the scBTC is always in control of the original BTC, it's just locked. A malfunction/default/shutdown of the SC doesn't effect your ability to unlock the original BTC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following from a technical standpoint: A SC only references that the original BTC is continually "locked" in the correct way. As soon as it is unlocked the SC asset ceases to exist as well (regardless if the SC network is actively functioning) If that's true nobody will have an incentive to stay in the main blockchain. Every body will leave the BTC blockchain to enjoy an upside potentiel without downside in a sidechain. That's really bad. now that's a really damn good point. |
|
|
|
|
nullc, in pm's with me, has admitted that there are cases where scBTC can be lost on SC's. i should've gotten into the specifics.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how the peg will work.
Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.
So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?
If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it. But if not... The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime. If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin. Why BTC is the primary liquidity for SC? What prevent people to buy the SC on the open market with fiat? It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges. earlier i was trying to conceive a scenario where the mining fees required to transit the peg might become exorbitant thus negating the perfect arbitrage. what would happen if either BTC or scBTC is perceived to be in crisis and failing? anyone trying to get out from the failing unit might have to pay thru the nose to do so as the miner would be taking signif fee risk with a unit heading to zero. |
|
|
|
I don't understand how the peg will work.
Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.
So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?
If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it. i'm confused about this. i've heard different stories from, "it's not possible to lose your scBTC to a SC failure b/c you can always access the peg back to BTC" versus "you'll lose everything". then this from LukeJr: [–]Freemanix 2 points 7 hours ago What if the child chain is defunct/abandoned? How can I return my funds back onto parent chain? permalink save parent report give gold reply [–]luke-jr [-6] 3 points 7 hours ago Mining it yourself? There's potentially ways to do a unilateral transfer, but that's something beyond simple sidechains for now. |
|
|
|
I have spent some time reading the Reddit AMA and I'm sorry to say but it was disappointing to witness the childish stubbordness in your numerous comment in the face of considerably knowledgeable adversity. Your back must be aching from all this heavy lifting cause there were some serious moving of the goal post. You were corrected many time for different false assumption that you keep spreading around on this forum which I consider very concerning misinformation.
in that thread, here's my scores: upvotes=50 downvotes=11 0 points=7 seems, on balance, you're the one with the distorted perspective. |
|
|
|
I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".
These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need: 1) open source code 2) consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power Again, why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?
This is not so black and white. I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk. Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point. I don't see why it couldn't happen. Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades. brg444, I'm past the part about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible. On planes all day so in and out Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it. I could go for that. Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins. They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth. well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid. so in that sense, we've made some progress. but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin. I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin. miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity. and that would be for another SC that takes my SC with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that. then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again! what a hassle and potential security risk. if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect. as they defect, miners would have to follow. no? money always seeks the place that treats it best. |
|
|
|
No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.
Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.
Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist. If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists. If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers. Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0. Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins. Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back. You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain. I get what you are saying but Smooth says you can't arbitrage between SCbtc and BTC because if SCbtc is superior, then no one will own BTC. I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive. |
|
|
|
I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".
These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need: 1) open source code 2) consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power Again, why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?
This is not so black and white. I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk. Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point. I don't see why it couldn't happen. Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades. brg444, I'm past the part about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible. On planes all day so in and out Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it. I could go for that. Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins. |
|
|
|
I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".
These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need: 1) open source code 2) consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power Again, why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?
This is not so black and white. I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk. Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point. I don't see why it couldn't happen. Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades. brg444, I'm past the part about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible. On planes all day so in and out |
|
|
|
If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?
Some altcoins are more equal than others. It's kind of embarrassing that certain people keep clinging to the idea of demurrage, in spite of the fact that Freicoin conclusively proved that nobody wants self-destructing money. What's embarrassing is brg444 continuing to promise that no altcoins will be considered in SC's when there is an entire section dedicated to them in the paper. |
|
|
|
|
If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?
I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".
Again, why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?
|
|
|
|
That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more. If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out. In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back Yes there is reason to convert back. You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert. Rinse and repeat. if i were setting up a SC, i'd just fork Bitcoin, add an anonymity function, then let it run. there'd be a good chance i could get a full on rush into my SC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
