Deleted

[kingcolex]

.

[1715478865]

1715478865

[1715478865]

1715478865

[1715478865]

1715478865

[1715478865]

1715478865

[Amph]

the difference is that they will no be any real pump&dump or malicious dev behind it with hidden instamine, premine and other craps like that, and their use will be directly connected with bitcoin, instead of serving their own only

[AgentofCoin]

the difference is that they will no be any real pump&dump or malicious dev behind it with hidden instamine, premine and other craps like that, and their use will be directly connected with bitcoin, instead of serving their own only

When a dev makes a sidechain he sets the rules, why is there no instamine or other crap? I feel this is definitely an unproven speculation.

The sidechain networks, from my understanding, is for thousands or millions of transactions a day, using their own coin.
Because of this, Bitcoin/bitcoin can stay the way it is and not have to hard fork to handle an increase in block sizes (20mb debate).
The idea is to keep it tied to bitcoin and will use Bitcoin network to do 1 or 2 major settlement transactions a day.

The altcoins that currently exist are not directly tied to bitcoin, but can be bought and converted into bitcoin.

But yes, I do think when it comes to the sidechain networks, they are instamined, controlled, and not decentralized.
But I may be incorrect on that.

Ultimately, the sidechain networks are a work around from increasing the Bitcoin block size.

[tvbcof]

Simple.  Sidechains ARE Bitcoin.  They are (when fully developed and proven) very close to a pure proxy for Bitcoin and don't impact the economics at all except that the balloon the demand and provide a giant incentive for pushing distribution to the far corners of the earth.

There are almost litterally no downsides.  I've identified some actual and real theoretical problems with sidechains but they were completely ignored while the utter bullshit arguments which rely on various states of ignorance are about the only things that are pumped by the bloatchain crowd.

---

PS:  I personally don't dislike altcoins.  I don't own any because they are tedious and I already own BTC, but I like the opportunity for experimentation.  Sidechains offer this on top of Bitcoin itself.

[AgentofCoin]

The sidechain networks, from my understanding, is for thousands or millions of transactions a day, using their own coin.
Because of this, Bitcoin/bitcoin can stay the way it is and not have to hard fork to handle an increase in block sizes (20mb debate).
The idea is to keep it tied to bitcoin and will use Bitcoin network to do 1 or 2 major settlement transactions a day.

The altcoins that currently exist are not directly tied to bitcoin, but can be bought and converted into bitcoin.

But yes, I do think when it comes to the sidechain networks, they are instamined, controlled, and not decentralized.
But I may be incorrect on that.

Ultimately, the sidechain networks are a work around from increasing the Bitcoin block size.

So the vendor would need to decide what sidechain coin to accept making it that much harder for stores to truly accept bitcoin and a big pain for adoption, I see this as definitely a negative.

Yes, in theory.
It is possible there could be competing sidechains in the future and venders could use multiple ones like Visa, Mastercard, etc.
The vendors could choose which ever sidechain network they preferred. One could be tied to Coinbase, another could be Bitpay, or etc.
Or it could be that one beats them all out and there is only one official BTC sidechain network for vendors, in the future, when the time comes.

The debate is whether Bitcoin should be "the" coin for all global transactions, or should be "the" final settlement coin, that all other systems feed back into.

[tvbcof]

Simple.  Sidechains ARE Bitcoin.  They are (when fully developed and proven) very close to a pure proxy for Bitcoin and don't impact the economics at all except that the balloon the demand and provide a giant incentive for pushing distribution to the far corners of the earth.

There are almost litterally no downsides.  I've identified some actual and real theoretical problems with sidechains but they were completely ignored while the utter bullshit arguments which rely on various states of ignorance are about the only things that are pumped by the bloatchain crowd.

---

PS:  I personally don't dislike altcoins.  I don't own any because they are tedious and I already own BTC, but I like the opportunity for experimentation.  Sidechains offer this on top of Bitcoin itself.

I see sidechains having unique places but not a replacement for store use and microtransactions and how are there no downsides? There would still be scammers and people making sidechains every single day and promising this or that while it would be ridiculously hard to get stores to accept sidechain A or sidechain B while they're already barely accepting Bitcoin.

I think sidechains could be good for certain thing and is a nice technology I just don't see it being able to fix the 1mb limit, we definitely need a block size increase while sidechains are implemented they may help with the lifespan of the new block size before another increase would be needed.

There will always be scammers.  They exist in Bitcoin (and make a good living), they exist (if not dominate) in altcoins, and they'll exist in sidechains.  The better job the Blockstream guys do with sidechains, the more difficult and less lucrative sidechain scammers job will be.

Nothing about sidechains makes Bitcoin any different for general use and wealth storage than one has without them.  It's a sad fact of reality that many people can barely afford a pot to piss in and they have no real need for a heavy-duty solution such as gold and Bitcoin for wealth storage.  Leaving these people out of native Bitcoin is mildly sad, but it really is no great loss for them.  Indeed, allowing them a reliable and inexpensive solution with robust protection via Bitcoin backing is doing them a great service.

[Alley]

I don't get side chains.  Can somebody post a example of how one might work?  Would the coin used be bitcoin or something different?

[ticoti]

Because you still keep using bitcoin and its snet effect it is spread around the people in the world

you don't need to accept a bunch of altcoins,just accept bitcoin

[Amph]

the difference is that they will no be any real pump&dump or malicious dev behind it with hidden instamine, premine and other craps like that, and their use will be directly connected with bitcoin, instead of serving their own only

When a dev makes a sidechain he sets the rules, why is there no instamine or other crap? I feel this is definitely an unproven speculation.

the dev behind it are the four dev that work on bitcoin, one should trust them more than a random dev on the altcoin section

also bears in mind that sidechain are empty, you just fill them by moving your bitcoin, they are alternatives blockchain that are waiting to be used, for their unique features

here a good explanation http://gendal.me/2014/10/26/a-simple-explanation-of-bitcoin-sidechains/

basically a interaction between multiple blockchain, like multiverse, if you allow me an analogy

I don't get side chains.  Can somebody post a example of how one might work?  Would the coin used be bitcoin or something different?

a summary

The sidechains ideas is this:

Send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control… and out of the control of anybody else either. They’re completely immobilized and can only be unlocked if somebody can prove they’re no longer being used elsewhere (I’ll explain what I mean by this in a minute).   In other words, you’ve used the core bitcoin transaction rules I described above to lay down a specific condition that the future owner – whoever it ends up being – needs to fulfil in order to take control

Once this immobilisation transaction is sufficiently confirmed, you send a message to the other blockchain – the one you were wanting to use. This message contains a proof that the coins were sent to that special address on the Bitcoin network, that they are therefore now immobilized and, crucially, that you were the one who did it

If the second blockchain has agreed to be a Bitcoin sidechain, it now does something really special… it creates the exact same number of tokens on its own network and gives you control of them.

So it’s as if your Bitcoins have been transferred to this second chain. And remember: they’re immobilized on the Bitcoin network… so we haven’t created or destroyed any…. Just “moved” them.

You can now transact with those coins on that second chain, under whatever rules that chain chooses to implement.

Perhaps blocks are created faster on that sidechain. Perhaps transaction scripts are “turing complete”. Perhaps you have to pay fees to incent those securing that sidechain. Who knows. The rules can be whatever those running that sidechain want them to be. The only rule that matters is that the sidechain agrees to follow the convention that if you can prove you put some Bitcoins out of reach on the Bitcoin network, the same number will pop into existence on the sidechain.

And now for the second clever part. The logic above is symmetric. So, at any point, whoever is holding these coins on the sidechain can send them back to the Bitcoin network by creating a special transaction on the sidechain that immobilises the bitcoins on the sidechain. They’ll disappear from the sidechain and become available again on the Bitcoin network, under the control of whoever last owned them on the sidechain.

[tvbcof]

I don't get side chains.  Can somebody post a example of how one might work?  Would the coin used be bitcoin or something different?

A sidechain is (or can be) just about any alt, but it has a 'two-way-peg' to BTC.  One can autonomously translate your 'alt coin' back into BTC or it could happen automatically if the alt coin fails.  In order to take a position in a sidechain one must reduce their position in BTC (or someone must.)  This makes the fear of 'inflation' bogus.

These things will not necessarily always (or ever) be true, but you are perfectly free to choose which sidechains you wish to use based on the feature set, quality, etc which is important to you.  Free market FTW!

These are my personal understandings of Sidechains, or at least the promise of them, but I did not develop them and am not intimately familiar with the technical details.  I will be familiar before I take any of the many positions I anticipate however.

[bitcreditscc]

The thing people are missing is that most users will stick to transacting in BTC, period. It's a very nice idea, i am actual porting and running a testnet by tonight but don't you see, instead of making BTC easier to use and explain, it just got a thousand times harder. This in no way improves the 1 MB situation or the mass adoption goal.

I think that this release was hurriedly pushed forward to try and counter the advocates of the 20/8 MB increase, even some of the stuff i am looking at now make no real sense. I'll keep trying to grasp it, maybe i'll change my mind, but i'm so far unimpressed (with regard to fixing tx issue).

[Trouble821]

Would it be necessary to make changes to the bitcoin code to implement sidechains?

I cannot envision the community easily accepting code changes after all the arguments over increasing the block size.

[AgentofCoin]

If anyone wants to read an example of sidechains, here is a link from reddit I just read.
It seems like a good example for anyone who is completely lost.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/396m1y/a_simple_way_to_think_about_how_sidechains_work/

[Alley]

So who mines the sidechain and what will the incentive be? 

[Hazir]

Because you still keep using bitcoin and its snet effect it is spread around the people in the world

you don't need to accept a bunch of altcoins,just accept bitcoin

Pretty much this. Altcoins are just a hindrance, people are creating them as pump and dump in order to earn quick money almost in 100% cases.
Most of them are copy paste or existing code without any changes beside name of the coin. Instead on focusing our attention on altcoins why don't we focus and upgrade bitcoin?
It would beneficial for us a lot more than creating new altcoin everyday. I think going pro sidechains are also not the way to evolve... Only pure bitcoin is the way. Stop deviations.

[Amph]

I think you're thinking that only Bitstream can make sidechains, when they are making the technology to add sidechains. So anyone can make their own sidechain and tie it to the network, it is a lot more like altcoins than anything else, they are pegged to the chain and not using a third party exchange like cryptsy to change.

So we will have sketchy coins and issues just like altcoins and this does increase the difficulty of understanding bitcoin to new people who want to start accepting it and using it.

from what i understand those sidechain are useless if you don't move your bitcoin there, this is the real difference, they only work when someone use them with real bitcoin from the main blockchain

if they aren't working in this way, then they should re-think about it and make them working in this is way

[tvbcof]

So who mines the sidechain and what will the incentive be? 

 - Gold relies on physics for backing.

 - Fiat relies on a judicial system for backing.  (legal tender laws and enforcement.)

 - Bitcoin relies on math for backing.

 - Sidechains rely on Bitcoin for backing.

Sharp-eyed viewers will note that sidechains which are properly implemented actually do not need POW or POS (proof-of-work, proof-of-stake) to have an autonomous backing store because they rely on something else, though force of habit will probably make most of them make some use of certain of these mechanisms.  What sidechains need desperately, however, is for that their backing is rock solid.  I hypothesize/hope that it provides sufficient incentive to keep Bitcoin healthy, but this relies on sidechains themselves to be widely geo-politially distributed which is entirely possible and even likely.  And if not likely, at least the best hope.

Here is a very real danger to Bitcoin which nobody talks about:  Sidechains could relatively easily 'swap out' their backing store to something else.  If they did so en-mass Bitcoin could suffer or even die.  Should that happen, however, it would probably be in a situation where that was a good thing, and the value base may well be snapped from the extinct blockchain.

[bitcreditscc]

Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin. 

[Amph]

I think you're thinking that only Bitstream can make sidechains, when they are making the technology to add sidechains. So anyone can make their own sidechain and tie it to the network, it is a lot more like altcoins than anything else, they are pegged to the chain and not using a third party exchange like cryptsy to change.

So we will have sketchy coins and issues just like altcoins and this does increase the difficulty of understanding bitcoin to new people who want to start accepting it and using it.

from what i understand those sidechain are useless if you don't move your bitcoin there, this is the real difference, they only work when someone use them with real bitcoin from the main blockchain

if they aren't working in this way, then they should re-think about it and make them working in this is way

Yes but they still will have indie developers with future promises of this and that while they make up whatever rules or components they want but instead of mining they are just bought with bitcoin. (I think there still has to be some mining somewhere)

For example Sidechain DELTA comes out, one Delta is equivalent to .1 bitcoin, you send 1 bitcoin and get 10 delta, You now own 10 delta and can send delta to whomever accepts it and delta can have its own rules. Delta has a speed of 1 block every minute and is anonymous and limited to 1,000,000 delta but it is centralized. Delta can't be used at shops only accepting bitcoin though and has to be reconverted back (just like altcoins)


So what if many people start buying delta as they like it and can switch it back to bitcoin as they like but all of the sudden (since it is centralized) Delta developer decided to increase the amount of delta to 10,000,000 and value them at .01 bitcoin each, what is stopping him? How can this be blocked?

i think the value should be 1:1 with bitcoin, and if one of the sidechain value, is increased the ratio should still remain the same, so bitcoin should increase too in value(it is as if they had bought bitcoin when they buy each saidechain counterpart), this should avoid any issue about your concern

[tvbcof]

Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin. 

That's the thing, it seems that all of these sidechains would pretty much have to be centralized to keep the price stable when you convert back to bitcoin but that's not what many want from bitcoin.

Bitcoin values themselves would probably stabilize under a healthy sidechains ecosystem simply because the various sidechains would gain and lose traction at the expense of one another.  That is an entirely different thing than Bitcoin centralizing.  Indeed, since sidechains have a likelihood of distributing into a variety of niches and dragging Bitcoin alone for it's support role, Bitcoin is likely to de-centralize significantly as a result.  My projection of course.