Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2018, 11:18:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A lot of users dislike altcoins but are pro sidechains, why?  (Read 3122 times)
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:25:36 PM
 #21

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 pro sidechains are also not the way to go... Only pure bitcoin is the way.
Sidechains are essentially altcoins, that's the point of this thread, they have different rules and developers but don't use an exchange like cryptsy to get them. That is why I am asking why people who dislike altcoins are pro sidechains.

Check out MonarchCrypto.com

It's a website!
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531783105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531783105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531783105
Reply with quote  #2

1531783105
Report to moderator
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:27:00 PM
 #22

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1004


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 07:32:48 PM
 #23


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.


kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:03:54 PM
 #24

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?

Check out MonarchCrypto.com

It's a website!
bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:08:59 PM
 #25

Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:10:09 PM
 #26

Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes
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.

Check out MonarchCrypto.com

It's a website!
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:13:24 PM
 #27

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1004


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:16:14 PM
 #28


Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

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.


R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:27:07 PM
 #29

To be fair, kingcolex, you're the first one that I see that understand why having sidechains is not the Holy Grail at all.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
tacotime
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:30:18 PM
 #30

Sidechains are altcoins, which use Bitcoins as their basis. By subscribing to the sidechain, you subscribe to the same ethos as Bitcoin... namely, the vast number of coins owned by Satoshi and now the core developers (some of whom were rumoured or seen to have made large purchases of Bitcoins with the formation of Blockstream).

I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.

The other issue with sidechains is that effectively everything can become a sidechain of anything else if you push foreign coins onto Bitcoin mainnet as coloured tokens. I've been calling this "bilateral two-way peg" for a while, and I'm not sure that there's any way Bitcoin mainnet could prohibit it after they add sidechain-related OP codes. The real (negative or positive) value of sidechains remains to be seen, and I think we haven't even touched the scale of redundancy that might occur in the future as a result of them.

The good thing is that the Blockstream guys are doing some pretty neat cryptographic research, in any case.

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:36:05 PM
 #31


Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

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.


So under your projection bitcoin will not centralize much but the sidechains will and the plan for many is to keep bitcoin as the storage and then sidechains as the everyday coin. So the everyday coin will be centralized sidechains ? Seems more towards centralization then true decentralization to me, especially when these centralized chains can do whatever they want.


Check out MonarchCrypto.com

It's a website!
tacotime
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:37:21 PM
 #32

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.

Perhaps in the Soviet Union of Bitcoin. Economic outcomes are terrible when there are no competitors for any given market, for example, if there were a government monopoly allowing only a single car manufacturer. You might imagine that this single company would have the highest efficiency, but the reality is that efficiency actually decreases without competition. I doubt Blockstream and sidechains would ever have come into being without the pressure (and sometimes, innovation) afforded by altchains.

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 08:47:04 PM
 #33


Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

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.



Oi, in this case it's everything else is centralizing around bitcoin. So a failure in bitcoin is a failure in everything.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2562
Merit: 1004


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:12:37 PM
 #34


Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

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.


Oi, in this case it's everything else is centralizing around bitcoin. So a failure in bitcoin is a failure in everything.

Actually, it's just the opposite.  A value store could be 'swapped out' and almost certainly would in the case of a catastrphic failure.  An examples of such would be the subjugation such that blacklisting was sufficiently effective to materially impact fungibility of Bitcoin itself.

In most cases of the above mentioned failure mode, a successful replacement backing store would likely take a recent snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain as a source-of-truth to assign valuations.  This promotes confidence in Bitcoin itself.

One rarely mentioned advantage of adding one layer of abstraction to a global currency solution (that is, adding sidechains to Bitcoin) is that Bitcoin itself as a backing store has a lot more flexibility to react to attacks while the various sidechains continue to basically do their job with a much more muted impact.  This might be the reason why peg operations are projected to be considered robust when they are like 144 blocks deep.  I don't have anything to do with the Blockstream folks so this is just a conjecture on my part.


Alley
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:39:33 PM
 #35

How secure would a sidechain be?  Just as secure as the bitcoin network?  Or easily hacked?  Double spend?
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 09:45:06 PM
 #36

How secure would a sidechain be?  Just as secure as the bitcoin network?  Or easily hacked?  Double spend?

Depends on what type of sidechain is made.
You could create one that mines, like bitcoin network, and checks for double spends and etc.

But overall, most would probably be premined/instamined.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
coinpr0n
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 10:32:17 PM
 #37

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

In the case of the Elements Alpha sidechain:

"[...] Elements alpha is based completely around a 5-of-7 multisig address. The seven keys are distributed on seven servers all running the Elements network. They are the only nodes that are ever allowed to "mine blocks," and through that 5-of-7 multisig, they control the actual Bitcoin value. [...]"

I re-recommend this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/396m1y/a_simple_way_to_think_about_how_sidechains_work/

pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1056


View Profile WWW
June 09, 2015, 10:34:34 PM
 #38

Oh yes, lets all centralize around bitcoin.  Roll Eyes
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.

Why would they have to be centralised? Taking the below explanation (@Amph - thanks for sharing), you wouldn't have to rely on anyone to guarantee say 1:1 exchange rate, since BTC backing the sidechains tokens are already there secured and temporarily immobilised (not destroyed). At least that's how I understand it. So the only concern is whether the sidechain isn't faulty/flawed and whether it has healthy network.

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

The sidechains ideas is this:

...
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.


Although, assuming the sidechain offers 1:1 token, when making transition back to the BTC blockchain, I think the exchange rate would actually be 1 token: 1BTC net of tx fee (but that's not a big deal).

neurotypical
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 12:24:49 AM
 #39

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).


What kind of transaction per second volume will BTC have when sidechains are running? Will it be able to compete vs the big boys (mastercard/visa)?
GRWer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 12:33:01 AM
 #40

99% altcoins are cheaters , they fake the total amount and do pre mining , so ppl have their right choice
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!