Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:31:38 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 [799] 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010840 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 03:51:03 AM
 #15961

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1511281898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281898
Reply with quote  #2

1511281898
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281898
Reply with quote  #2

1511281898
Report to moderator
1511281898
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281898

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281898
Reply with quote  #2

1511281898
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 04:06:05 AM
 #15962

My Noob Questions:

Say a sidechain were created for paypal:

Would paypal have to buy existing coins and move them to sidechain?

When in that sidechain these coins would have same fiat price as existing chain coins?

My estimation would be this:

Paypal decides to run a sidechain.

I have a Paypal account that I use to buy stuff on e-bay.  The way I've always done things is to keep an account charged up with the funds I think I might need.  Currently I do this through an ACH transfer a couple times per year (same mechanism as Coinbase uses.)  This is true in my case right now BTW though I guess not everyone does this.

I have some BTC.  Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain.  I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.

Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money.  I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that.  As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else.  I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue.  For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right.  If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.


rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 04:19:29 AM
 #15963

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.
79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192

◕_◕


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 04:40:29 AM
 #15964

The better question is what is the use case for a paypal chain?

Paypal is used to send money over the world. Bitcoin does that natively so honestly I don't see it.

How about: cheaper transactions or faster confirmations than on the blockchain?


I have some BTC.  Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain.  I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.

Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money.  I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that.  As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else.  I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue.  For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right.  If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.

This scenario seems needlessly complex right now: it would be far simpler (and would drive adoption) if ebay vendors directly accepted BTC. But down the road tx fees will likely be relatively heftier, and use cases for microtransactions greater.  SCs are presented as a possible solution to these issues. What (trustless) alternatives do the SC skeptics propose?
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:02:23 AM
 #15965

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

The SC two-way peg mechanism lets you move information (in this case bitcoins) from one blockchain A to another blockchain B, use that data (in this case scBTC) however the new blockchain B allows, and then move them back to the original blockchain A.

The new blockchain B (sidechain) could be setup any way it wants. The design space is entirely open. The one constraint is the 2-way peg. If blockchain A transfers 10 BTC to blockchain B, then regardless of whatever happens on blockchain B, blockchain B can only reclaim 10 BTC on the main blockchain A.

I'd imagine most sidechains would start at a their own block 1, and operate from there. They may have coinbases in found blocks or may not. They may use sha256 or something (anything) else for POW. They may use ECDSA, or something (anything) else. If they try something that fails and is hacked, it only effects people who transferred value to that sidechain as the sidechain can only reclaim the original value transferred to it. If they have coinbases it does not change the fact that they can only reclaim the original BTC that were sent.

I'd imagine most sidechains will have no coinbase on use the same crypto as Bitcoin so transaction fees alone would attract miners to MM and thus benefit from Bitcoin's hashrate.

There could also be centralized sidechains that trust a single entity. (i.e. a paypal coin) Here no real mining needs to happen because the centralized entity would maintain the block order. Only people comfortable with that arrangement would use that sidechain. The centralized entity could do whatever it wants, but is still limited by the 2-way peg with the main chain.

In all these cases though the concept of a single 21M BTC ledger is preserved through the 2-way pegging system. This maintains the economics of Bitcoin and it's role as sound money. Bitcoin is the parent chain and all sidechains are children chains dependent on the Bitcoin genesis chain, the total value of all will only total 21M BTC at any given time.

The thing to remember is Bitcoin is the root of the system, within a world of many sidechains Bitcoin is still the genesis chain, there is still only one ledger due to the 2-way peg. If anything starts to screw up Bitcoin (such as miners exiting due to no fees) it effects all and the community would work to fix that. March 2013 showed how focused everyone is in the face of existential threats.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:34:10 AM
 #15966

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

The SC two-way peg mechanism lets you move information (in this case bitcoins) from one blockchain A to another blockchain B, use that data (in this case scBTC) however the new blockchain B allows, and then move them back to the original blockchain A.

The new blockchain B (sidechain) could be setup any way it wants. The design space is entirely open. The one constraint is the 2-way peg. If blockchain A transfers 10 BTC to blockchain B, then regardless of whatever happens on blockchain B, blockchain B can only reclaim 10 BTC on the main blockchain A.

I'd imagine most sidechains would start at a their own block 1, and operate from there. They may have coinbases in found blocks or may not. They may use sha256 or something (anything) else for POW. They may use ECDSA, or something (anything) else. If they try something that fails and is hacked, it only effects people who transferred value to that sidechain as the sidechain can only reclaim the original value transferred to it. If they have coinbases it does not change the fact that they can only reclaim the original BTC that were sent.

I'd imagine most sidechains will have no coinbase on use the same crypto as Bitcoin so transaction fees alone would attract miners to MM and thus benefit from Bitcoin's hashrate.

There could also be centralized sidechains that trust a single entity. (i.e. a paypal coin) Here no real mining needs to happen because the centralized entity would maintain the block order.

In all these cases though the concept of a single 21M BTC ledger is preserved through the 2-way pegging system. This maintains the economics of Bitcoin and it's role as sound money. Bitcoin is the parent chain and all sidechains are children chains dependent on the Bitcoin genesis chain, the total value of all will only total 21M BTC at any given time.

The thing to remember is Bitcoin is the root of the system, within a world of many sidechains Bitcoin is still the genesis chain, there is still only one ledger due to the 2-way peg. If anything starts to screw up Bitcoin (such as miners exiting due to no fees) it effects all and the community would work to fix that. March 2013 showed how focused everyone is in the face of existential threats.

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:44:11 AM
 #15967

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.

No, I've mostly been looking at the concept and playing with that. What I've seen at the concept level I like.

For now, I've assumed the math behind the two-way pegging system is sound. This is something I need to understand better before completely buying into the concept. Hopefully over the coming months there will be better layman descriptions of the two-way pegging system and from there can dive in the details more. This was the process I used when learning ECDSA originally. It's entirely possible once I understand the pegging system better I'll hate the idea, but for now am looking at the concept assuming the peg works as advertised.

If anyone understand the math behind the peg, please share. I think everyone could use that.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:51:45 AM
 #15968

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.

No, I've mostly been looking at the concept and playing with that. What I've seen at the concept level I like.

For now, I've assumed the math behind the two-way pegging system is sound. This is something I need to understand better before completely buying into the concept. Hopefully over the coming months there will be better layman descriptions of the two-way pegging system and from there can dive in the details more. This was the process I used when learning ECDSA originally. It's entirely possible once I understand the pegging system better I'll hate the idea, but for now am looking at the concept assuming the peg works as advertised.

If anyone understand the math behind the peg, please share. I think everyone could use that.

changing the script op codes to accommodate these proofs while embedding additional data into blocks changes things quite a bit in terms of complexity to the Bitcoin protocol it appears.  one can claim that it is only a change in the script but when you realize all routine BTC tx's occur within script, it doesn't seem so trivial of a change.

the 2wp is also not so seamless when you consider it takes at least a full 2d to get thru these contest/confimration periods.
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
 #15969

in the meantime, silver is being destroyed.  need i say more on this topic?

Is this a direct consequence?

Breaking! US MINT SUSPENDS SILVER EAGLES

Please excuse me for having posted back on topic  Cheesy

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 09:46:38 AM
 #15970

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.  
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its pretty exhausting because it is difficult to determine what you are trying to communicate.
This post in particular is merely self contradictory rhetoric.  It doesn't contain any reasoned arguments.
Parse it yourself and you will see...

Either (a) side chains have no capability to "mess with" Bitcoin, or (b) they are empowered to improve, ensure preservation, and adaptability...  

Then, you claim to know the purpose of side chains.  As if there is only one purpose that *the people* that create side chains can have.  This is an outlandishly impossible claim to make.

Followed by another self contradiction.  Either (a) side chains do not change the incentive structure, or (b) they improve it.  Both of these can not be true.


I think you should just stop advocating for side chains.  You are a bad spokesperson for the cause.  People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself.  

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:51:50 AM
 #15971

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC.
It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto)

example:
SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins)
 - there is not digital ledger in couponSC
 - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand
 - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC
 - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed.

Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins.
Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC.

Again "It does not matters what crypto will SC use. "
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
 #15972

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.  
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.


"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them. 

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 09:57:42 AM
 #15973

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC.
It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto)

example:
SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins)
 - there is not digital ledger in couponSC
 - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand
 - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC
 - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed.

Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins.
Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC.

Again "It does not matters what crypto will SC use. "

Yes... it does matter.
If a SC uses a compromised crypto, say one that incorporates key escrow, then the one with the escrowed keys can redeem the bitcoin that have been sent to the side chain.
Advocating for blind trust of all SC just on the merits that they are SC, is not a service to your readers.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 10:11:39 AM
 #15974

I think you should just stop advocating for side chains.  You are a bad spokesperson for the cause.  People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself. 
I think instead brg444 did a great job answering a lot of the criticism related to sidechains.

As for myself I've some reserves on them too, but they are more about the technical side of the things, for example that the SPV proofs can work. It may and should work as advertised, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to verify all the calculations.

But if we take for granted that the math is ok (as this thread seems doing), I find the critics of this thread mostly dumb. Cypherdoc in primis seems to be completely without any clue, and I find this a bit strange.

Again, I don't know if the 2wp using SPV could work as defined, but if they to, SC would solve all the problems Bitcoin has today and guarantee his success in the way forward.

SC can save Bitcoin from competing and possibly better altcoins and give it the possibility to evolve as the market requires without requiring all Bitcoin participants to agree on every new feature that has to be added to the core protocol.

Heck, even the raise of the block limit fails to find a consensus in the Bitcoin community, and that should be an easy one.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 10:18:31 AM
 #15975

I think you should just stop advocating for side chains.  You are a bad spokesperson for the cause.  People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself.  
I think instead brg444 did a great job answering a lot of the criticism related to sidechains.

As for myself I've some reserves on them too, but they are more about the technical side of the things, for example that the SPV proofs can work. It may and should work as advertised, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to verify all the calculations.

But if we take for granted that the math is ok (as this thread seems doing), I find the critics of this thread mostly dumb. Cypherdoc in primis seems to be completely without any clue, and I find this a bit strange.

Again, I don't know if the 2wp using SPV could work as defined, but if they to, SC would solve all the problems Bitcoin has today and guarantee his success in the way forward.

SC can save Bitcoin from competing and possibly better altcoins and give it the possibility to evolve as the market requires without requiring all Bitcoin participants to agree on every new feature that has to be added to the core protocol.

Heck, even the raise of the block limit fails to find a consensus in the Bitcoin community, and that should be an easy one.

ugh.

Worse than snake-oil peddlers.

You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase.

The problem that you share with brg444 is that you not only make claims which are unsubstantiated and too grand, you also encourage discounting of reasonable risks and concerns.  This "answers" criticism without explaining it, which should not be your goal if you are looking for agreement with your position.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 10:45:03 AM
 #15976

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC.
It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto)

example:
SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins)
 - there is not digital ledger in couponSC
 - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand
 - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC
 - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed.

Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins.
Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC.

Again "It does not matters what crypto will SC use. "

Yes... it does matter.
If a SC uses a compromised crypto, say one that incorporates key escrow, then the one with the escrowed keys can redeem the bitcoin that have been sent to the side chain.
Advocating for blind trust of all SC just on the merits that they are SC, is not a service to your readers.

There are 2 different things. 2wp(escrow), and side-blockchain crypto
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
 #15977

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC.
It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto)

example:
SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins)
 - there is not digital ledger in couponSC
 - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand
 - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC
 - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed.

Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins.
Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC.

Again "It does not matters what crypto will SC use. "

Yes... it does matter.
If a SC uses a compromised crypto, say one that incorporates key escrow, then the one with the escrowed keys can redeem the bitcoin that have been sent to the side chain.
Advocating for blind trust of all SC just on the merits that they are SC, is not a service to your readers.

There are 2 different things. 2wp(escrow), and side-blockchain crypto

LOL, of course the notion of 2wp and the cryptography used to accomplish it are different things.  That is however orthagonal to the point that the cryptography used to accomplish it does matter, it matters quite a bit.

Here are some simple ways that it matters, there are many others.
1) It is either compatible with the ASICs used for MC mining, or not (this matters for merge mining potential).
2) It is either using a key escrow or not (this would allow the initiator of the side chain to seize any of the side chain that doesn't comply with its rules - like the govSC discussed earlier).
3) It is either a well established cryptographc algorithm or not.
4) The algorithm uses cryptographic primitives which are either compromised or not.
5) The algorithm is either conducive to a PoW structure, or not.

If what you mean by "it doesn't matter what crypto SC will use" is that SC can use any crypto, good bad or ugly, then we agree.  I would just suggest that it does matter whether the crypto is good bad or ugly.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 01:11:49 PM
 #15978

You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase.
I can't understand what you mean.

Quote
The problem that you share with brg444 is that you not only make claims which are unsubstantiated and too grand, you also encourage discounting of reasonable risks and concerns.  This "answers" criticism without explaining it, which should not be your goal if you are looking for agreement with your position.
I try to use high-level reasoning, for example giving for granted that making "trustless 2wp" is possible (we can't be completely sure, for now).

So, looking at the cryptomoney ecosystem I see that Bitcoin has a clear advantage to any other coin, mainly due to network effect and infrastructure built around it, and that's good.

Bute there are a lot of new coins coming out, and apart from some stupid copycats (most of them), some innovation is being done in the field.

I don't want to have 10 or even only 3 different coins which share the market (and hence bitcoin capitalisation and liquidity), each one filling some gap that bitcoin can't cover (or that it does badly), I would prefer Bitcoin to be "the perfect money".

Now, we know we need to be very, very conservative on the changes to the core protocol because the possibility of breakage, even when minuscule, can cause enormous problems, so we need to research and thoroughly test new ideas before they can be imported in Bitcoin.

Also, almost everyone agrees on the fact that Bitcoin development is too centralized, with a few actors having much greater role of any others in pushing some set of changes.

So, the only way left are lobbying the developers (and we don't want that), or creating completely new altcoins that has to compete with Bitcoin and anyway take liquidity and market cap from it.
Also, even if remote, there is the risk that one of these altcoin, if backed by a big corp like amazon, apple, microsoft & C could really be a Bitcoin competitor in the future: Bitcoin actual market cap is tiny even compared to the size of one the big player market cap.

How to permit innovation in Bitcoin land without some small group of people could veto them for whatever reason it is?
And for innovation in Bitcoin I mean for example: better anonimity, higher TPS, better security, more decentralized mining, and certainly NOT the raising on the maxmimum number of existing bitcoin units and their distribution.

I think that SC can solve this problem: it mantains what is the good of bitcoin (cap on the coins, their distribution and security for who does not want to use new features) and enable permissionless innovation for everybody who want to give it a try.

If a SC which is completely better than Bitcoin under every aspect can arise, so be it: that will be a better money for everybody, and it can grow up bit by bit without disrupting bitcoin market, infrastructure and its market cap.
Alternatively, a SC which is better than Bitcoin under only some aspects and not all of them will give more value to the whole ecosystem without any drawback: only who is interested in it uses it without taking anything to any other.

I'm unable to envision a way for a SC to destroy Bitcoin, except for the case that we already knows: altcoins.

Every time I read cypherdoc on the subject I'm unable to understand the kind of threat he sees, and it seems to me simply that he is missing the point of what a 2wp gives us.

I'll continue to read the thread with interest to better understand these kind of scenarios, if any, I thank everybody for their contribution to the matter.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:32:48 PM
 #15979

The better question is what is the use case for a paypal chain?

Paypal is used to send money over the world. Bitcoin does that natively so honestly I don't see it.

How about: cheaper transactions or faster confirmations than on the blockchain?


I have some BTC.  Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain.  I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.

Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money.  I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that.  As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else.  I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue.  For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right.  If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.

This scenario seems needlessly complex right now: it would be far simpler (and would drive adoption) if ebay vendors directly accepted BTC. But down the road tx fees will likely be relatively heftier, and use cases for microtransactions greater.  SCs are presented as a possible solution to these issues. What (trustless) alternatives do the SC skeptics propose?


wouldn't an exit of miners to SC's help the Blockstream business model?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 01:51:17 PM
 #15980

You should have ended that particular sentence with the first phrase.
I can't understand what you mean.

Your statement:
Quote from: Dusty
Again, I don't know if the 2wp using SPV could work as defined, but if they to, SC would solve all the problems Bitcoin has today and guarantee his success in the way forward.

Side chains per se, do not solve all the problems Bitcoin has today, nor are they a guarantee of anything.
What they are is a mechanism.  They may have the potential to solve problems.  That will depend entirely on what people do with them.  They are another tool in the tool belt.  It can be used to build or destroy.  The existence of this mechanism does not guarantee the success of Bitcoin.  It would be nice if it did, and we could all just sit back and wait for the magic to happen.

Instead there is a new tool, a new mechanism.  It may be used by all sorts of people, and groups.  This is great, it is the nature of open source collaboration.  However we must recognize that only some people may share common goals with you or me, and others may not.  And you may not know whether any particular SC creator does or doesn't.  There may be wolves in alpaca clothing.

These are the sorts of things that I (and presumably CypherDoc and others) consider with caution.  What makes this even more of a concern is when we see these posts that essentially say "there is nothing to worry about", "this fixes everything" or "the details of the cryptography don't matter".
Those sort of statements are either (a) just misunderstood word choices (and something else was meant by the author), or (b) maybe the author is simply misguided or exuberant , or (c) perhaps they may be malicious attempts to misguide others.

If it is (a) it tends to get more clear with some attention.  If (b) it is worrisome that there are going to be coming disappointments when the hoped for effects don't materialize, and (c) is just expected and is dealt with in much the same way as (a). 


What you wrote here below is sensible.  We may disagree on some matters of preference, but I like that you say what side chains "can" do rather than what they "will" do.  It is important to understand that they can be used and also can be abused.  I think Cypherdoc is understanding the function and capabilities pretty well.  I also think his caution is reasonable.  Some SC may be great and solve some problems...And I think that there will be some SC that end up costing some people a LOT of their hard earned bitcoin due to fraud, misrepresentation, and blind trust.  So when I see folks saying "everything is great, Side Chains are here to save us" type stuff, all the red flags go up.

I try to use high-level reasoning, for example giving for granted that making "trustless 2wp" is possible (we can't be completely sure, for now).

So, looking at the cryptomoney ecosystem I see that Bitcoin has a clear advantage to any other coin, mainly due to network effect and infrastructure built around it, and that's good.

But there are a lot of new coins coming out, and apart from some stupid copycats (most of them), some innovation is being done in the field.

I don't want to have 10 or even only 3 different coins which share the market (and hence bitcoin capitalisation and liquidity), each one filling some gap that bitcoin can't cover (or that it does badly), I would prefer Bitcoin to be "the perfect money".

Now, we know we need to be very, very conservative on the changes to the core protocol because the possibility of breakage, even when minuscule, can cause enormous problems, so we need to research and thoroughly test new ideas before they can be imported in Bitcoin.

Also, almost everyone agrees on the fact that Bitcoin development is too centralized, with a few actors having much greater role of any others in pushing some set of changes.

So, the only way left are lobbying the developers (and we don't want that), or creating completely new altcoins that has to compete with Bitcoin and anyway take liquidity and market cap from it.
Also, even if remote, there is the risk that one of these altcoin, if backed by a big corp like amazon, apple, microsoft & C could really be a Bitcoin competitor in the future: Bitcoin actual market cap is tiny even compared to the size of one the big player market cap.

How to permit innovation in Bitcoin land without some small group of people could veto them for whatever reason it is?
And for innovation in Bitcoin I mean for example: better anonymity, higher TPS, better security, more decentralized mining, and certainly NOT the raising on the maximum number of existing bitcoin units and their distribution.

I think that SC can solve this problem: it maintains what is the good of bitcoin (cap on the coins, their distribution and security for who does not want to use new features) and enable permissionless innovation for everybody who want to give it a try.

If a SC which is completely better than Bitcoin under every aspect can arise, so be it: that will be a better money for everybody, and it can grow up bit by bit without disrupting bitcoin market, infrastructure and its market cap.
Alternatively, a SC which is better than Bitcoin under only some aspects and not all of them will give more value to the whole ecosystem without any drawback: only who is interested in it uses it without taking anything to any other.

I'm unable to envision a way for a SC to destroy Bitcoin, except for the case that we already knows: altcoins.

Every time I read cypherdoc on the subject I'm unable to understand the kind of threat he sees, and it seems to me simply that he is missing the point of what a 2wp gives us.

I'll continue to read the thread with interest to better understand these kind of scenarios, if any, I thank everybody for their contribution to the matter.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Pages: « 1 ... 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 [799] 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 ... 1558 »
  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!