Bitcoin & Sidechains

[Abiky]

Once a stable version of the Lightning Network launches, then Bitcoin's functionalities will extend. As such, it'll be possible to do atomic swaps, submarine swaps, and more without the need for middleman. After this, sidechains will become the biggest trend on the Bitcoin blockchain, as they enable features that are available in the world's most popular altcoins in existence today. With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

As such, it would be interesting to know how sidechains will perform within the Bitcoin network, as they prove to become a better option than using an altcoin for nearly any kind of purpose in real life. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts about Bitcoin sidechains? Will they be the way of the future? Is it possible that they will replace altcoins? Or will they coexist?

[franky1]

Once a stable version of the Lightning Network launches, then Bitcoin's functionalities will extend. As such, it'll be possible to do atomic swaps, submarine swaps, and more without the need for middleman. After this, sidechains will become the biggest trend on the Bitcoin blockchain, as they enable features that are available in the world's most popular altcoins in existence today. With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

As such, it would be interesting to know how sidechains will perform within the Bitcoin network, as they prove to become a better option than using an altcoin for nearly any kind of purpose in real life. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts about Bitcoin sidechains? Will they be the way of the future? Is it possible that they will replace altcoins? Or will they coexist?

LN and sidechains are not "within the bitcoin network" they are their own networks.
they dont strengthen bitcoin. they lock bitcoin and get users to use other networks of coins that are not bitcoin.
EG
LN payments are not bitcoin payments. you can easily spot this because LN uses tokens of 12 decimals not 8

LN and side chains are services. not sole route future solutions.
bitcoin needs to continue to innovate on network. not promote other networks

remember rule 1
if you dont hold sole control of a bitcoin private key. you dont own your bitcoin

remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
(i can make 20billion transactions that have balance. but until confirmed.. it aint bitcoin im holding)

rootstock, bakkt and LN are not bitcoin. they are just tagging the logo and brand to their network fr fame and investment. but ultimately they also accept/will accept other coins without only being a feature for only bitcoin. nor would they break if not bitcoin exclusive.

[figmentofmyass]

Once a stable version of the Lightning Network launches, then Bitcoin's functionalities will extend. As such, it'll be possible to do atomic swaps, submarine swaps, and more without the need for middleman. After this, sidechains will become the biggest trend on the Bitcoin blockchain, as they enable features that are available in the world's most popular altcoins in existence today. With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

As such, it would be interesting to know how sidechains will perform within the Bitcoin network, as they prove to become a better option than using an altcoin for nearly any kind of purpose in real life. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts about Bitcoin sidechains? Will they be the way of the future? Is it possible that they will replace altcoins? Or will they coexist?

sidechains aren't part of the consensus. they are totally separate protocols/networks that are just interoperable with bitcoin.

when you're using sidechain tokens, you're definitely not using bitcoins. since they aren't secured by the mining consensus, they should be considered much less secure and valued accordingly. there's also nothing that says 1 sidechain token = 1 bitcoin. they can have different supplies.

i prefer to see sidechains more like the altcoins of today + interoperability with bitcoin. there might be a shift in value towards altcoins that can work as bitcoin sidechains, but there will always be market interest in altcoins generally. this is because most altcoin features will never be added to the bitcoin consensus---as you point out, it will happen on sidechains.

[pooya87]

as far as i know sidechain is not the same as second layer. in other words there is a big difference between a sidechain such as RootStock (for smart contracts) and a second layer like Lightning Network (for bitcoin transactions). although they may look the same a sidechain is a side "chain" so it has its own blockchain and you convert your bitcoin to tokens of that chain and then you would be using that. but in a second layer you are still using bitcoin and everything else is exactly the same but you will be in a different "network" of nodes.

so this would be wrong:

when you're using sidechain tokens, you're definitely not using bitcoins. since they aren't secured by the mining consensus, they should be considered much less secure and valued accordingly.

they are secured by their own consensus and are secure relatively and their value will be determined based on their functionality and utility.

i also disagree with this:

it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

there is still a lot of things we can explore with altcoins. today 90% of them may be pure shitcoins but that doesn't mean the technology is forgotten. there still are pretty interesting ideas among them.

[franky1]

as far as i know sidechain is not the same as second layer. in other words there is a big difference between a sidechain such as RootStock (for smart contracts) and a second layer like Lightning Network (for bitcoin transactions). although they may look the same a sidechain is a side "chain" so it has its own blockchain and you convert your bitcoin to tokens of that chain and then you would be using that. but in a second layer you are still using bitcoin and everything else is exactly the same but you will be in a different "network" of nodes.

LN and sidechains are similar. both lock up coins. and both let you play around with other tokens that represent bitcoins. but are not bitcoins. and when you want to settle up. then your broadcasting a real bitcoin transaction back to the bitcoin network

hint
LN uses tokens in their payments with 12 decimals. not 8 decimals.(research millisats)
its only the final settlement transaction that is set at 8 decimals. (the one intended to be broadcast) not the payment 12 decimal token transactions that will never be seen on bitcoins blockchain, which are only played around with on LN.

and also LN is not glued to bitcoin. if all bitcoiners stopped locking up funds. and only litecoiners used it. LN will continue.
LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network that allows multiple coins to peg into LN

but like many things. where there was NXT that called itself bitcoin 2.0 and litecoin that called itself bitcoin silver. and companies like circle that called themselves bitcoin companies.. they all can function and survive without bitcoin. thus. are over promoting themselves for fame and investment

[odolvlobo]

...
remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
...

Perhaps your rule needs some work. You are saying that all of the transactions in the Bitcoin mempool are not Bitcoin transactions since they are not confirmed. If that is the case, then your definition of "bitcoin transaction" is not very good.

[davis196]

Like all the previous members said,sidechains aren't blockchain,BUT many newbies think that they ARE a part of the blockchain,so the growth of sidechains might lead to bitcoin growth.
I really wish that bitcoin will have some killer advantages that will render all altcoins useless.It doesn't matter if it will be sidechains like LN or some improvement of the blockchain.

[mu_enrico]

<...>
Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

As such, it would be interesting to know how sidechains will perform within the Bitcoin network, as they prove to become a better option than using an altcoin for nearly any kind of purpose in real life. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts about Bitcoin sidechains? Will they be the way of the future? Is it possible that they will replace altcoins? Or will they coexist?

I don't think sidechains will render altcoins useless since bitcoin code wasn't meant to be "the cure for all problems." IMO, the best use case for sidechain is LN, and it might be beneficial when the bitcoin price is so high that normal transaction becomes too expensive. However, for near future, maybe only segwit tx fee reduction is enough.

Maybe, just maybe when bitcoin is widely used for microtransaction, these sidechain/LN will become useful. But we have two uncertainties here: (1) LN smoothly developed, and could perform as intended; (2) people use bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee.

[figmentofmyass]

as far as i know sidechain is not the same as second layer. in other words there is a big difference between a sidechain such as RootStock (for smart contracts) and a second layer like Lightning Network (for bitcoin transactions). although they may look the same a sidechain is a side "chain" so it has its own blockchain and you convert your bitcoin to tokens of that chain and then you would be using that. but in a second layer you are still using bitcoin and everything else is exactly the same but you will be in a different "network" of nodes.

so this would be wrong:

when you're using sidechain tokens, you're definitely not using bitcoins. since they aren't secured by the mining consensus, they should be considered much less secure and valued accordingly.

how is it wrong? on a sidechain, you're not using bitcoins. it's a different blockchain with different protocol rules, secured by a different consensus than bitcoin.

they are secured by their own consensus and are secure relatively and their value will be determined based on their functionality and utility.

yes, their own consensus, ie not secured by bitcoin miners. AFAIK sidechains can currently be secured by merged mining or federated (trusted) consensus or with pegging using SPV proofs. maybe those can be "relatively secure" (whatever that means) but they certainly aren't nearly as secure as BTC. all of these methods can subject users to majority (51%) attacks, and sidechains will be much easier to attack than bitcoin.

i don't think sidechains (as currently theorized) are secure. they are by definition less secure than bitcoin. at a 1:1 peg, that creates incentive to attack a sidechain.

food for thought from peter todd....

The problem with mined sidechains is that the segwit "anyone-can-spend" issue is a reality, not FUD, and miners can steal sidechain funds; the reason why segwit doesn't have that problem is because full nodes prevent the theft, but sidechains have only miner-trusting SPV.

If you can have a trustless sidechain, you've also solved decentralized scaling; none of the sidechains proposed to date solve decentralized scaling.

[squatter]

...
remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
...

Perhaps your rule needs some work. You are saying that all of the transactions in the Bitcoin mempool are not Bitcoin transactions since they are not confirmed. If that is the case, then your definition of "bitcoin transaction" is not very good.

I don't know. That's debatable. I mean, what defines "Bitcoin?" If it's the whitepaper, then miner consensus seems central to Bitcoin and therefore Bitcoin transactions. This is what Satoshi once said about unconfirmed transactions:

0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens.  At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.

There are reasons -- perhaps not just practical but also philosophical -- why unconfirmed "BTC" shouldn't be counted as BTC in your wallet.

This is one of those "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" sort of problems. If settlement hasn't occurred, has a BTC transaction really taken place? Many transactions are dropped from the mempool and never confirmed. Many transactions aren't propogated to the network at all because of node policy.

Surely, when a payment channel is closed and the channel is settled on-chain, a Bitcoin transaction occurs. But everything that happens inside a payment channel? I'm not so sure.

[Kprawn]

We can debate the difference between Side chains and Second layer applications to death here and it will not make any

 difference. The end result must be that the "settlement" must be linked to the BTC Blockchain and not to a separate

Blockchain that operates on another Blockchain. This adds another new dimension to Bitcoin (BTC) development and if the

majority likes it, then we should run with it. If you not happy, then feel free to develop your own Alt coin with it's own

unique features. 

[franky1]

...
remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
...

Perhaps your rule needs some work. You are saying that all of the transactions in the Bitcoin mempool are not Bitcoin transactions since they are not confirmed. If that is the case, then your definition of "bitcoin transaction" is not very good.

1. transactions get dropped off peoples mempools alot or swapped out for other transactions using 'replaced by fee' or by CPFP
by the way many people have filled mempools with TX that never get confirmed. (12.8% rejected)



2. bitcoin mempool? there is no bitcoin mempool.
there are individual mempools each node has. and a mempool you have may contain different transactions then the mempool i have which is different then the transactions a mempool a block creator has.
people can push different transactions to different pools. and until its confirmed its not set in stone.

thats what blockchains do. they set a list of transactions that everyone should agree on.
(byzantine generals problem)

even LN devs know that, as they wont let factories set up LN transactions based on unconfirmed bitcoin transaction.. but strangely then let channels set up funds using unconfirmed 12 digit tokens based on the trust of a factory.. (funny thing that is.. and ripe for taking advantage of, which the LN devs also know of such risk(they still concepting and trying to find a solution to that))

[pooya87]

~
how is it wrong? on a sidechain, you're not using bitcoins. it's a different blockchain with different protocol rules, secured by a different consensus than bitcoin.

i meant the second part about their safety. they are less secure but they are still secured by mining, whether merged mining or any other ways.

food for thought from peter todd....

The problem with mined sidechains is that the segwit "anyone-can-spend" issue is a reality, not FUD, and miners can steal sidechain funds; the reason why segwit doesn't have that problem is because full nodes prevent the theft, but sidechains have only miner-trusting SPV.

If you can have a trustless sidechain, you've also solved decentralized scaling; none of the sidechains proposed to date solve decentralized scaling.

this doesn't make any sense!
if a side chain allows spending of SegWit outputs then it means that side chain is flawed and nobody will even use it. the fixture is easy, you just add the same consensus rules to that blockchain also! so a SegWit output is a SegWit output over there too.

[DooMAD]

With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future.

It's fair to point out that it wouldn't actually be Bitcoin processing the smart contracts and such, but since it's generally assumed that Bitcoin will be the blockchain that effectively underpins all the others, it's likely Bitcoin users can effectively "borrow" the properties of these other chains.  It's not that we would be "promoting other networks" at a cost or detriment to Bitcoin, but rather that Bitcoin would be strengthened because users would only be using the other chains temporarily for whatever specialist need they require, then would naturally return to the blockchain which has the greatest network effects and real world acceptance once they're finished.

[Abiky]

LN and sidechains are not "within the bitcoin network" they are their own networks.
they dont strengthen bitcoin. they lock bitcoin and get users to use other networks of coins that are not bitcoin.
EG
LN payments are not bitcoin payments. you can easily spot this because LN uses tokens of 12 decimals not 8

LN and side chains are services. not sole route future solutions.
bitcoin needs to continue to innovate on network. not promote other networks

remember rule 1
if you dont hold sole control of a bitcoin private key. you dont own your bitcoin

remember rule 2
if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction.
(i can make 20billion transactions that have balance. but until confirmed.. it aint bitcoin im holding)

rootstock, bakkt and LN are not bitcoin. they are just tagging the logo and brand to their network fr fame and investment. but ultimately they also accept/will accept other coins without only being a feature for only bitcoin. nor would they break if not bitcoin exclusive.

Thanks for your clarification. The concept of sidechains seemed a little confusing to me, but now I understand how they work. While they're not within the Bitcoin network, they could be as secure as the main chain if I'm correct. This means that there could exist altcoins that would rely on Bitcoin's blockchain for greater security.

Speaking of RootStock, if it becomes highly successful, then it could easily rival Ethereum. Smart contract capabilities on Bitcoin would allow dApps to gain the security of the Bitcoin blockchain which is quite revolutionary, IMO.

sidechains aren't part of the consensus. they are totally separate protocols/networks that are just interoperable with bitcoin.

when you're using sidechain tokens, you're definitely not using bitcoins. since they aren't secured by the mining consensus, they should be considered much less secure and valued accordingly. there's also nothing that says 1 sidechain token = 1 bitcoin. they can have different supplies.

i prefer to see sidechains more like the altcoins of today + interoperability with bitcoin. there might be a shift in value towards altcoins that can work as bitcoin sidechains, but there will always be market interest in altcoins generally. this is because most altcoin features will never be added to the bitcoin consensus---as you point out, it will happen on sidechains.

Probably. Both sidechains and altcoins could exist for a long time, if there's enough interest from people into using it within the mainstream world. The way I see it, is that sidechains would have a greater advantage than altcoins in terms of security and reliability. There have been many altcoins with small networks that have been easily attacked. While many are quite revolutionary with their unique features and technology, they're not as secure and reliable as the Bitcoin blockchain. That's why I believe that sidechains could become a big hit, even if they're not able to replace altcoins in the future.

However, things that cannot be achieved on a sidechain, can be done in altcoins, so it's good to have competition in the market to allow people to choose from a variety of cryptocurrencies for their own specific needs.

there is still a lot of things we can explore with altcoins. today 90% of them may be pure shitcoins but that doesn't mean the technology is forgotten. there still are pretty interesting ideas among them.

Yes. While most altcoins are worthless, there are a select few which are unique within the blockchain industry. I don't think that all the features available in altcoins would be implemented into sidechains, except for the most important ones such as smart contracts, and privacy. As such, altcoins might continue to exist as they would provide something unique to people in the mainstream world. Some have their unique mining algorithms, while others have different approaches when it comes to privacy and security.

Therefore, it'll be interesting to watch how both of said concepts (sidechains and altcoins) would behave within a few years from now. I'm sure that they'll mature until they become a rock-solid ecosystem for the benefit of everyone around the world.