Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

[1714286027]

1714286027

[1714286027]

1714286027

[1714286027]

1714286027

[1714286027]

1714286027

[tvbcof]

But running a SC does have overhead and risk.  It seems obvious to me that companies will use the mainchain if possible (that is, it scales and can capture the transaction).

There are significant number of people who don't want the main chain to scale, for various reason.

Sidechains provide those people both with an argument against scaling the main chain, and it creates a group of people with a financial interest in preventing the main chain from adopting new features which might render particular sidechains less necessary.

The latter part wouldn't be such a big deal if Blockstream wasn't so closely connected with Bitcoin Core development.

the SC's idea was hatched in the minds of the Blockstream ppl at least a year ago from an interview,iirc, and someone put up a link on bitcointalk from a thread by killerstorm initially discussing the idea maybe 2 yrs ago.  they then filed the trademark in April 2014.  so we know they've been thinking about making this move for at least a year.  

http://www.inovia.com/products/directory/trademarks-number-86247026/blockstream-trademark-owned-by-blockstream-corporation

I proposed naming the 'mainchain' with a 0 back in summer 2011.  One of my early posts on this forum.  Scaling via child chains is actually something of a no-brainer since it solves so many problems so nicely with so few downsides.

I also took on a decent sized Bitcoin position partially because of the hope that the community would eventually understand the scaling difficulties and utilize the mainchain in the logical way before it was to late.  That it took until 2015 has been highly aggravating to me and has caused me long stretches of demoralization with the solution.

[cypherdoc]

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

let me distill it even further.

brg444 is trying to scare us into believing that unless we implement spvp to core, all these thousands of SC entities are going to move to federated servers which are opaque and much more ominous and threatening to Bitcoin.  somehow.

[btcney]

I don't even know what the fuck everyone here is discussing but it sure ain't about Gold collapsing or Bitcoin going up  

[NewLiberty]

is the skiplist as described in the SC WP the same as SCIP?  doesn't sound like it.

Right they are different things.
SCIP is the underpinning of SNARK though.

This:

• SNARKs. An exciting recent development in academic cryptography has been the invention
of SNARKs [BSCG+13]. SNARKs are space-efficient, quickly verifiable zero-knowledge
cryptographic proofs that some computation was done. However, their use is currently
inhibited because the proofs for most programs are too slow to generate on today’s computers,
and the existing constructions require a trusted setup, meaning that the creator of the system
is able to create false proofs.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority,
whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then blocks could be
constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge
in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous
blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest block. These
proofs could also replace the DMMSes used to move coins from another chain by proving
that the sending chain is valid according to some rules previously defined.
...
[BSCG+13]
E. Ben-Sasson, A. Chiesa, D. Genkin, E. Tromer, and M. Virza, SNARKs for C:
Verifying program executions succinctly and in zero knowledge, Cryptology ePrint
Archive, Report 2013/507, 2013, http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507.

[NewLiberty]

I don't even know what the fuck everyone here is discussing but it sure ain't about Gold collapsing or Bitcoin going up  

It is about Gold collapsing and Bitcoin UP.
Just for wildly inclusive definitions of Gold and Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

...
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick.  There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight.  Grow the fuck up.

I think his account was hacked, or maybe he's been tweaking a bit.  The real cypherdoc would never do anything like that.

hey, it worked didn't it? 

i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself.  and i didn't have to pay a dime.  btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream.

it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said?  for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically.  instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking).

hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake.  i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school.  i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs.  i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions.  i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love.

and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

[Adrian-x]

]

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

1)  The incentive structure has nearly zero to do with the 'hardness' of the money.  But if you want to talk incentive structure, talk about block size since it is completely related to transaction fees.  That is one of the reasons why I consider the block size to be a very significant system level change which influences both the defensive capability of the system and it's economics.  Much bigger than a soft-fork script extension which nobody is forced to use an which does not alter the basic operating principles of Bitcoin almost at all.

2)  Seems at least as ethical as the Bitcoin Foundation charging $100,000 for a seat at the big-boy's table and paying one of the principle developers.  Or BitPay paying another.  As long as there is transparency I've got nothing against these kinds of things.  TBF leaves a lot to be desired vis-a-vis transparency and the status as a trade group makes this lack of transparency much more problematic to me.

As far as I'm concerned brg444 has been quite clear in most of his arguments (note that the above are my own...I'm not trying to re-iterate his.)  Indeed, his grasp of Bitcoin is suspiciously good for a newbie which is the only argument I can see for cypherdoc's meltdown into raving paranoia.

I think im as skeptical as you when it comes to trusting anyone with the ability to make changes to the Bitcoin protocol, and I have just as much disdain for the Bitcoin Foundation. It wouldn't bother me if TX fees were adjusted manually for the next 2 to 5 years while people discuss options.

As for block size and TX fees, the fee is only used to incentivize security, miners are not (but for a miner limitation in hard drive write speeds) impeded by block size, just nodes.

If Bitcoin scales big I'm of the opinion that a computer enthusiasts with 10 to 100 BTC would be happy and financially incentivized to maintain a node in a similar way many like to manage there own portfolios today.

There is a cost to run the network and it is donated by the nods, the place I see opportunity for innovation is here. I've not seen one proposal to address this in an effective way and SC do it in an ineffective way by using the security incentive to subsidies the maintenance cost.

[cypherdoc]

I don't even know what the fuck everyone here is discussing but it sure ain't about Gold collapsing or Bitcoin going up  

It is about Gold collapsing and Bitcoin UP.
Just for wildly inclusive definitions of Gold and Bitcoin.

we deal with all existential threats here.

[Odalv]

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV. 

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative SIDECURENCY to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

[brg444]

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

Good day gentleman, it is a beautiful snowy day outside. First, let us address this brain fart from our most cherished lunatic.

 

Why did I not think about this! You don't even need SPVProof, just bolt yourself to BTC directly through a federated server and "siphon" all these BTCs.

But wait.... I still don't own them? How do you suggest I use Bitcoin without actually... you know... buying them? I mean it's cool and all if people lock their BTC to my sidechain but how is this supposed to "buy me a seat" in the system.

Schyzophrenia : where attracting BTC is as easy as a creating a sidechain.

[notme]

...
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick.  There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight.  Grow the fuck up.

I think his account was hacked, or maybe he's been tweaking a bit.  The real cypherdoc would never do anything like that.

hey, it worked didn't it?  

i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself.  and i didn't have to pay a dime.  btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream.

it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said?  for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically.  instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking).

hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake.  i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school.  i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs.  i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions.  i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love.

So who are you?  If brg444's privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of an honest discussion, so should yours.

and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

And a wife with a nice fat trust fund.

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

And we'd like to know who we're dealing with.

[brg444]

Any side chain can of course be implemented entirely without Bitcoin at all.  Perhaps, some would not be viable as federated systems, such as those needing a true zero trust environment and wanting to also hold BTC in their chain.  
Its not really a zero trust application if you are trusting an oracle.  Those would be fairly esoteric though, probably most of the ones that are being seriously contemplated would be accepted with a federated system, with the exception of those that may be requiring extraordinary security.  If it is something where folks don't trust that the federating entity isn't their enemy in disguise.  It would be one trust removed to have the protocol change.

Without the Bitcoin network running the verification, why use Bitcoin at all though?  Might as well use an Altcoin as the "separated currency".
It would be a better bootstrap to prove the case anyway.

Though some of the issues are insidious and won't manifest their effects until there are a lot of locked coin.


Federated systems work fine until the federated server (or the Bitcoin network) goes away.
Bitcoin works fine, until the Bitcoin network goes away.

I agree with all of the above and am happy to see that your thoughts are aligned with mine.

Why use Bitcoin? Simply because the altcoin as less interoperability as a "separated currency" and of course because it creates a new scarcity that does not respect Bitcoin's ledger.

[brg444]

do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.

Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications.
Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"?

 

Can we please have the decency to leave my personal life out of this?

[brg444]

2. Considering, as I've explained,  that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.

It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.

Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future?

Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source?
(This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.)

There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology.
It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere.
I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others.  The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't.

I wish them every success.

It matters little what use Blockstream makes of the code. The fact is the code is open source. I see that you recognize this further down below so I'm not sure what is the point of your question.

My argument is ANYONE can benefit from the change to the protocol that Blockstream suggests.

[brg444]

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

I have adressed quite clearly why it think it is important for the SPV proof to be implemented so that we don't end up with a majority of federated model/off-chain schemes.

Improves:

Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect.

Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.

Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward.

What enables :

SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.

It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.

The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization

Maybe you'd like to refine YOUR message so that we can all understand why it is the issues I have pointed out above are "no good" arguments

[brg444]

Yes.  It is very clear to everyone that implementing an OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY into the Bitcoin protocol is good for Blockstream, and good for the Side Chains.
It is less clear that it is good for the Bitcoin protocol.

Then when "but we can do everything with federation and oracle already today, so we should just do it" is added to the argument, it makes anyone with a wary eye look at this as if it were a slimy sales technique.

If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

You people and your obsessions with Blockstream  You couldn't just say that it was good for sidechains right?

I have repeatedly explained why it is unlikely Blockstream's business model is limited to OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY, care to argue this?

I have made my opinion known as to why it IS good for the Bitcoin protocol, care to share your insight?

My argumented has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles.

[NewLiberty]

Most radical new ideas get tested out in the alt currency scene, no matter how insanely great they are.
This is soft of an incident of first precedence yes?

The SPV does the verification of the proof.  The proof is conducted externally.  Implementing SPV institutionalizes within the Bitcoin protocol, an external proof provider.  This provider is then trusted by the Bitcoin network, and verified in the protocol for every bitcoin user to trust.

The proof engines are not inexpensive to run, they will of necessity be centralized for the foreseeable future.  They are a sort of block chain of their own in that they are cryptographically encoding every computer instruction and chaining these into programmatic proofs.  I don't know how much competition there will be for Blockstream.  If they have the lock on the Bitcoin protocol, probably not much in the crypto currency arena.

That may let them bootstrap into all the other obvious venues for deterministic computing.  Many of these are government computing assurance regimes for computer assurance such as FIPS in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140

This provides the level of security to avoid STUXNET type attacks.  It does it in a way that is WAY better than any alternative yet and for arbitrary code.  It is hard to imagine that governments will not be their best customers for these technologies.

[NewLiberty]

Maybe you'd like to refine YOUR message so that we can all understand why it is the issues I have pointed out above are "no good" arguments

Simply put, it is an argument such as "we want it really badly so we should have it".  It does not concern itself at all with those from whom this is desired.

The thing about wanting something really badly, is that you usually get it really badly.

[tvbcof]

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

And we'd like to know who we're dealing with.

Someone outed him ages ago.  Some middle-aged dude in Georgia or Virginia or some such is all I recall.