Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.
Oh come on. Alts in the aggregate are only 10% of Bitcoin's value, and the biggest alt has no innovative features at all. It clearly exists for some completely different reason other than that addressed by side chains and therefore is unlikely to be affected. This obsession with alts is very unhealthy and unhelpful. Focus on the value that sidechains (or anything else) could potentially add to Bitcoin by allowing faster and safer development. There is a lot more than 10% to be gained there. That 10% was 5% for a long time, until recent months. So alts are gaining ground. Bitcoin needs the enhanced features SC promises, but importantly, scope for scalability as well. just for add a few more data points:  |
|
|
|
really?
on the contrary I think that the simplicity of the solution should regarded as positive.
It's not simple. The authors explicitly state that Sidechains introduce additional complexity on several levels. Maybe I misunderstood you I thought you've said "simple" whereas you've actually used "obvoius". People expected something extraordinary, not an obvious utilization of SPV, so I think majority is a little bit upset.
|
|
|
|
What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.
many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC. possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk. That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers. Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein. I'm in hurry now but if you have a few minutes to spare just skim through episode 77 and/or 99 of "let's talk bitcoin". Somewhere Adam Back describe an hypothetical scenario where a side chains is used to migrate between from one btc version to another. |
|
|
|
not sure where you're going with this.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
you're missing the overall pt. it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage. first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain. then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain. the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof. the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC. anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here. the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially. Hopefully those will change Bitcoin for the better. The only thing one can do is participate to the process fostering his own priorities in a way to balance those of other involved actors. |
|
|
|
So it seems that the real problem is the concentration of core devs into a single company, rather than the concept in itself.
...and the Bitcoin Core monopoly itself. I want to see the network fully heterogenous at the implementation level. We should be just as concerned about all the mining being done with Bitcoin Core as we are concerned about too much hashing being controlled by ghash.io. Get btcd, libbitcoin, and a couple more independent implementations in there too. We're in violent agreement then. I myself am in the process of setting up a full node, I wanted to try the latest improvements recently committed in the bitcoin core master branch. Maybe it's time to give btcd a try and if I'm quick I could set up an obelisk server too. Though I think this is ortogonal to sidechains concept as long as every full node incarnation could implement such feature. |
|
|
|
I like the Conformal model.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing. sure you are right,if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there are certain type of features that require a fork. if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic increase of the max block size. I don't think the problem is the fork as much as it's the financial incentive to get their fork in, and then block all other future forks that would render sidechains less necessary. Fair. So it seems that the real problem is the concentration of core devs into a single company, rather than the concept in itself. I hope that community financial incentives will work to against sidechains in case this idea/implementation turns out to be bad. |
|
|
|
sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there are certain type of features that require a fork. if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic increase of the max block size. edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past. you're right, again  The first time I heard about SCs project was while listening to let's talk bitcoin E99(or even an earlier nee, 77 maybe?). In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins. Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin in more secure way. With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes. He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future. |
|
|
|
i do find it interesting that the price tanked right after their announcement. the market doesn't like
confusion which will only get worse if we get a bunch of SC's with different economic assumptions
that could siphon off BTC to itself to the detriment of the main chain.
Unfortunately we can't know for sure the reason why the recent price tank. |
|
|
|
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains. I like the Conformal model. They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd. I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model. also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing. sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there are certain type of features that require a fork. if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic increase of the max block size. edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/ |
|
|
|
Is this a silk road moment?
care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol. Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain. The main chain will not be directly affected? Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain. relavant section To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. Almost sounds like your new Fed. I've no strong opinion about SCs. I only gave a cursory glance to the white-paper and far as I can see to use Bitcoin as a parent chain they "only" need to extend script adding a new opcode to recognise and validate the special SPV proof they use to implement two-way peg mechanism. I dunno if the SCs will be successful, but even if implemented nobody will force someone to use it as long as I'm not missing something obvious. Having said that you've to fight for what you think are right with all the tools at your disposal. edit: fix typos |
|
|
|
Is it me or this is actually the only thread in bitcointalk about sidechains and has no replies whatsoever?  People expected something extraordinary, not an obvious utilization of SPV, so I think majority is a little bit upset. really? on the contrary I think that the simplicity of the solution should regarded as positive. |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended |
|
|
|
Are you ever planning on sharing your secret formula you've discovered?
Q: Are you going to tell us the exact parameters of the method?
A: Not right now. Think of this as a 'public test' of the method, to see how it performs. If it fails, you're free to ridicule me publicly as well Cheesy
|
|
|
|
The next 24 hours are critical; true or false?
For XRP? |
|
|
|
Amazing answers, Mr. Antonopoulos. I couldn't have said it better myself. Truly impressed. We really do need to give the bitcoin community some time to breathe. Let people know more about Bitcoin then say something about it. Standing ovation for you, Andreas. Awesome!
If you have seen his previous videos then you'll come to know. He wasn't able to kick ass there. He skipped some question, and didn't came up with appropriate warrant. Plus, he was way too technical and repeated same thing again and again and again. you're sarcastic, right? |
|
|
|
Let's see TOR was a NSA project (Naval Intelligence under NSA)
Most crypto think tanks and players have been funded by groups or projects that lead back to the NSA, whose job it is to be a central depository for crypto related ideas and development.
NSA most likely have insiders in any crypto related project and if Satoshi was a project, it doesn't really matter now.
It is the currency of the underground, drugs (often connected to CIA) and gambling (SEALS with Clubs is that a possble reference to Navy Seals or Naval Intelligence).
Unless you are doing huge numbers and hanging out in the USA I guess it doesn't matter if they can track who is really moving btc around.
Will they steal from wallets? I doubt it, their abilities are most likely just related to tracking movement if they have any involvement at all.
Who knows, maybe they are btc and using the dough for black ops projects.
As long as your own btc wallet is secure and the users keep coming into the network, the value is real.
All crypto related players and projects eventually lead back to intelligence org's IMO and they have back doors in Windows and most OS's now, so the spooks know who you are. Just read the Snowden doc's on how backdoored ECC is now. The spooks know everything, if you are outside the USA and not doing drugs, I doubt they will ever bother you over btc. No one has explained yet how Silk Road fell, his lawyer motioned for docs to show the original breach in TOR or BTC that led to him. No response yet, it may be the NSA.
So what if you're not doing anything major that is illegal.
It was a flaw in the website captcha. No it wasn't. That's what they said, but I believe it's been rebutted by the defendants. *unwatches thread* It's highly likely that the captcha went out to the open web for info and this was used to pinpoint his IP. Then again it could have been alien involvement. Either way he's just as fucked because they caught him with all the incriminating evidence in his possession. |
|
|
|
another one to put on ignore
It's seriously time to bring back noob jail but increase it to 6 months to post and a year to start threads. where do I vote for that. I'd say, make it impossible to post if you have less than 1 posts, that would fix it. LOLed hard While at it could someone remind me the reasons why previous newbie restrictions have been removed? |
|
|
|
guess people forgot the drama that amir taaki was involved in
I wasn't here at the time. Care to share some pointers? He released the source code of a site "bitcoinica" (similar to bitfinex today). He did this without permission. That was bad enough itself, but it turns out the source code included an API key to mtgox which was also used as password for LastPass. Somebody figured this out after he released the source code which resulted in a theft of 40k USD and 40k BTC. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93074.0) So yeah, it looks like he made people lose a lot of money and "could care less" about it since they "have lots more". Many thanks for the links. I've heard about the bitcoinica affair a lot of times and I never bother to check what it really happened. Eventually it seems I have all the info I need to get an idea of what was going on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
