Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol]

[tvbcof]

Stop talking gobbledygook.

What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc.  This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.
 

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands.  I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially.  Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.

Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively.  I would expect them to do so indefinitely.  Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use.  Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts.  In that case they would just choose something else.

For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.'  The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you.  The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying.  Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto.  (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)

But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms.  To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action.  We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now.  Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.

[1714174478]

1714174478

[1714174478]

1714174478

[1714174478]

1714174478

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Stop talking gobbledygook.

What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc. This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.

You see, this is an example - "coherent in such topics" You may adopt a belief that is coherent, or you may be proficient in a topic, but Ive never seen them combined.
I find it makes more sense to more people to just used simple terms and language.

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

Confusing to whom?  I'm just being realistic. In the world of finance, bitcoin is a minnow, its growing ( but of course you will say not enough to justify simply making blocks bigger) but it is still small. The quantum leap suggested by blockstream includes handling payments in other currencies such as the dolllar.

The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands.  I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially.  Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.

You havent answered anything there - just what you will do.

Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively.  I would expect them to do so indefinitely.  Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use.  Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts.  In that case they would just choose something else.

Again, nothing new here.  If you are big player in bitcoin, then you continue as before. But that is not who blockstrem are targeting. They are targeting current players in the traditional financial market.  

For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.'  The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you.  The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying.  Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto.  (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)

You quote my phrase "handover their private keys to them", but then you go off on a meandering narrative about " state sponsored judicial systems" and finance. Then you tell me "Crypto uses mathematics"?  Blockstream because... trust.  What about the bitcoins the sidechains are being pegged to? How is that achieved? How do you secure them without having access to the private keys?

But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms.  To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action.  We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now.  Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.

XT is not an attack on Bitcoin. It is simply a different, more pragmatic view of how bitcoin can evolve over time. It seems to me that the Blockstream narrative effectively writes off bitcoin as a payment system as unfit for purpose. Everything blockstream espouses is predicated on a fundamental change to what bitcoin is and how it will work in the future. The paradox in your statement above is that you believe bitcoin will be the largest payment system in the world, but you cant even allow it to expand to serve its small but growing current userbase.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

[hdbuck]

...

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

funny they bring USD up tho. it indeed has everything to do regarding this subject.

this is yet another attempt to 'QE' bitcoin, its blocksize, its transaction capacity, even its cap down the road because of instigating a precedent upon its governance and since that's always been the mainstream financial solution to control everything.

[brg444]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6

[brg444]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6

Good article, but the first rebuttal is better :

Excellent post with much needed enlightenment around the crucial aspect which tends to be forgotten within the blocksize debate, namely, how should the "base money" of the internet be structured?
In this discussion, I would like to raise a few clarifying points:
1) Distributed asset ledgers are the first protocol instance of where the stakeholder to a ledger, and not the ledger operator, has control over the ledger assets (the importance of this cannot be overstated - it is the most crucial aspect of Satoshis discovery). Up until now, technological developments within finance have been limited to digitizing the record of account held with financial institutions. Banks have so far been shielded from disruption as the basic premise, that they are the account operator, has never before been under question.
2) As such, it is the first time that access to "base money", without counterparty risks, is available to everyone - as you mentioned, central banks only allow commercial banks to hold accounts in "base money", everyone else is left holding bank issued credit. Any limitation of this availability will ensure that we are back to the model whereby we need to trust a third party with custody of our assets.
3) Nearly every clearing model is based upon a net deferred settlement cycle, i.e. settlement does not happen until certain time-periods every day when all obligations to deliver are conducted through Delivery vs Payment (DvP) or Payment vs Payment (PvP). This is normal, and will work the same way even with the internet's "base money". When settlement is conducted, it is crucial that the multiple accounts can have a simultaneous discharge of obligations, i.e. the blocksize needs to be large enough to allow for the net settlement between the multitude of accounts/addresses to be included in one block/transaction which may be significantly larger than 1mb, even if the blockchain purely functions as a large value payments system.
In closing, I would like to raise a few points:
I understand that there is a strong desire to maintain the blockchain as trustless and distributed, but is the 1mb blocksize, whereby everyone is forced onto "commercial bank ledgers" - a.k.a. federated chains with one, or several, trusted third party, the way to go?
If we maintain the 1mb limit, will the "commercial banks" or sidechains be able to conduct settlement on a net deferred basis?
It seems to me a low blocksize will guarantee that bitcoin not only has centralized mining, but will also force people onto centrally controlled sidechains that may or may not be operated by a central account operator who can decide when you have access to your assets, under what circumstance you have access to your assets and how you will be able to access them.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

[brg444]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746

[tvbcof]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746

Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you.....

But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.

Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."

Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.

This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.

Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."

And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."

source

Seriously, did you just quote your own opinion  to back up your statement??? 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

[brg444]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746

Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you.....

But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.

Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."

Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.

This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.

Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."

And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."

source

Seriously, did you just quote your own opinion  to back up your statement??? 

I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.

I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.

I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

[tvbcof]

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them.  Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on.  When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you.  Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to.

[brg444]

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

No.

Think of sidechains as a multi-signature. I can assign one Bitcoin to a sidechain by sending it to a special output which will essentially "lock" the bitcoin on the mainchain and use proof of this "deposit" to issue an equivalent share (token) on the sidechain.

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow until I issue a different transaction from the sidechain to another special output. Once enough work is piled on top of the proof that I sent back the coins to the mainchain (my transaction) then I can use this proof to unlock the special output holding my original bitcoin.  

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them.  Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on.  When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you.  Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to.

Annnndddd.... you still haven't answered the question. If you wanna play the sidechain game, hand over your bitcoins.  Simple.

All these things are features that either do not work or do not exist now - and implementing them will further increase the size of a transaction. Looks like you are curing blockchain bloat with.... blockchain bloat.  

[brg444]

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them.  Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on.  When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you.  Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to.

Annnndddd.... you still haven't answered the question. If you wanna play the sidechain game, hand over your bitcoins.  Simple.

All these things are features that either do not work or do not exist now - and implementing them will further increase the size of a transaction. Looks like you are curing blockchain bloat with.... blockchain bloat.  

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

[brg444]

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.

I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.

I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

I think that you're frustrated because your understanding ( or at least hopes) around blockstream are flawed.

Since when do the views of employees trump the vision and mission of the boss?

Your last statement tells me you are foundering and speed reading the white paper for a soundbite that might give the impression that you have a deeper understanding than you do.

And finally:

Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

Maybe they should try bitcoinXT?

[brg444]

I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.

I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.

I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

I think that you're frustrated because your understanding ( or at least hopes) around blockstream are flawed.

Since when do the views of employees trump the vision and mission of the boss?

Your last statement tells me you are foundering and speed reading the white paper for a soundbite that might give the impression that you have a deeper understanding than you do.

And finally:

Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

Maybe they should try bitcoinXT?

Or maybe you ought to read the white paper at least a couple of times instead of pulling things out your ass? I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

You will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.