Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?

Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

[1714325017]

1714325017

[1714325017]

1714325017

[1714325017]

1714325017

[1714325017]

1714325017

[1714325017]

1714325017

[NewLiberty]

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

Bingo!

It doesn't actually do this though.  Not yet at least.  The trusted counterparty being the proof provider.
There are precious few folks that can do a good analysis of that counterparty.  The best anyone else can do is trust the evaluation.

Good cryptography takes some time to evaluate, it is complicated.  They should not expect this to be rushed.

:-)  This proof will create user who want exit from SC. Bitcoin miner only verifies this proof. If other user on SC will see it it not valid proof then he can provide valid (with more PoW).

Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

[brg444]

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.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

Not being done much today? Are you kidding me?

Coinbase, Counterparty, Coloredcoins, Bistamp.

Every exchanges, any "off-chain" schemes present the exact risk I am referring to. The trend is VERY clear in that sense.

Do you not think that these are security concerns and have a HIGH-risk potential to temper with the Bitcoin ledger?

Is it not true that with proper implementations sidechains are a very tempting alternative to these?

[tvbcof]

...
It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

Even GOOG cannot buy things which are not for sale.  That may, in fact, be why Blockstream was started.  Time will tell.  I can only hope, but I see it as the best hope for Bitcoin at this point.  By a mile.

[notme]

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

what i'm really looking for is a connection of brg444 to Blockstream.  it would explain the all out character assassination mode, afaic.

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.

nice try but i didn't get married until i was 27.

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

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

you're dealing with someone who has fought 2 previous long, grueling troll battles in the past supporting Bitcoin:  the gold collapsing debate since Aug 2011 when gold was near its top @1923 and the brutal Bitcoin crash of 2011 from 32-->1.98 against the Bitcoin bears.  this current debate is nothing new for me and is consistent with my past behavior.

You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles".  If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life?  Talk about a double standard.

[justusranvier]

i would much rather use OT federated servers from what i know about it.

At the very least, it won't take two days to move funds into and out of them.

[Odalv]

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

Bingo!

It doesn't actually do this though.  Not yet at least.  The trusted counterparty being the proof provider.
There are precious few folks that can do a good analysis of that counterparty.  The best anyone else can do is trust the evaluation.

Good cryptography takes some time to evaluate, it is complicated.  They should not expect this to be rushed.

:-)  This proof will create user who want exit from SC. Bitcoin miner only verifies this proof. If other user on SC will see it it not valid proof then he can provide valid (with more PoW).

Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

[Odalv]

i would much rather use OT federated servers from what i know about it.

At the very least, it won't take two days to move funds into and out of them.

two days are example.  It can be 30 min too. Every SC can have different "Wait contest period". (1 year or 10 mins => depends on what level of security is required)

[brg444]

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

This is a blatant lie.

Blockstream submitted the whitepaper. The community will have to vet the technology and subsequently  make plans for it to be implemented, as a consensus.

SPVproof is neutral open source code. It favors no one. You could argue as cypherdoc does that they have a "head-start" in that they have already assembled a team of highly competent cryptographer to support their business model.

What everyone here fails to ignore is that ANY competitor could've done the same. As you have pointed out the technology was up for grabs and could've been conceptualized and proposed through a white paper by any other team of developers that care enough.

How is SPV federated when the miners do the work!?

[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.

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.

that's reality. unless you want to argue there is no demand for transactions types that are not implementable on Bitcoin's mainchain

and i accept that.  i just don't think it represents the existential danger you're trying to make it out to be and certainly is not to be used as a "reason" to implement spvp.

you have used this argument ad nauseam in previous pages. you and buddy Adrian-x have made it a concern to the sound money principle of Bitcoin that the miners incentive to mine the mainchain be lost or tampered with.

you are not being very honest once again cypher

[NewLiberty]

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.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

Not being done much today? Are you kidding me?

Coinbase, Counterparty, Coloredcoins, Bistamp.

Every exchanges, any "off-chain" schemes present the exact risk I am referring to. The trend is VERY clear in that sense.

Do you not think that these are security concerns and have a HIGH-risk potential to temper with the Bitcoin ledger?

Is it not true that with proper implementations sidechains are a very tempting alternative to these?

Coinbase and Bitstamp are off-chain solution providers, and a different thing entirely.
Might as well lump in Lamborghini, the Federal government and anyone who has a bitcoin wallet and provides a good or service.

Counterparty is open source and on chain, there is no secret sauce proof provider there, except what some individual may negotiate with another p2p.
Yes, I think a proper implementation of side chains would be a best case scenario.
It has incredible implications and can solve a vast array of problems, Bitcoin is the least of it, but a good one, a great one.

It is a VERY tasty bait.  We are looking for where the hooks and line are so that we can best avoid them and enjoy it with gusto.
We may need to nibble before we bite and swallow.

I think that SNARKs is going to see action, for better or worse.  I think the primary customers are going to be governments (and they can pay much more in fiat than Bitcoin can, and also can do things with guns and jails).  It would be nice to have it as a part of private distributed money system as well.  The implementation matters though.

[NewLiberty]

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

This is a blatant lie.

Blockstream submitted the whitepaper. The community will have to vet the technology and subsequently  make plans for it to be implemented, as a consensus.

SPVproof is neutral open source code. It favors no one. You could argue as cypherdoc does that they have a "head-start" in that they have already assembled a team of highly competent cryptographer to support their business model.

What everyone here fails to ignore is that ANY competitor could've done the same. As you have pointed out the technology was up for grabs and could've been conceptualized and proposed through a white paper by any other team of developers that care enough.

How is SPV federated when the miners do the work!?

So... name the 2nd company and prove the lie?


SPV proof is only half the game.  The proof provider is the other half.  All SPV does is verify what the proof provider is doing.
The "head-start" is about half a decade ahead of anyone else, and draws from a very small pool of experts.  Practically draining that pool.
It is disingenuous to suggest that ANYONE can do this.  It is taking very good advantage of a very privileged position.

The miners do the work of mining.  They do not do the work of SNARKs.  They do not create the proof, they do not cryptographically codify all the code that underpins the proof.  They simply verify.  The bulk of the work here is not done by the miners.

[Odalv]

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.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

Not being done much today? Are you kidding me?

Coinbase, Counterparty, Coloredcoins, Bistamp.

Every exchanges, any "off-chain" schemes present the exact risk I am referring to. The trend is VERY clear in that sense.

Do you not think that these are security concerns and have a HIGH-risk potential to temper with the Bitcoin ledger?

Is it not true that with proper implementations sidechains are a very tempting alternative to these?

Coinbase and Bitstamp are off-chain solution providers, and a different thing entirely.
Might as well lump in Lamborghini, the Federal government and anyone who has a bitcoin wallet and provides a good or service.

Counterparty is open source and on chain, there is no secret sauce proof provider there, except what some individual may negotiate with another p2p.
Yes, I think a proper implementation of side chains would be a best case scenario.
It has incredible implications and can solve a vast array of problems, Bitcoin is the least of it, but a good one, a great one.

It is a VERY tasty bait.  We are looking for where the hooks and line are so that we can best avoid them and enjoy it with gusto.
We may need to nibble before we bite and swallow.

I think that SNARKs is going to see action, for better or worse.  I think the primary customers are going to be governments (and they can pay much more in fiat than Bitcoin can, and also can do things with guns and jails).  It would be nice to have it as a part of private distributed money system as well.  The implementation matters though.

Using SNARKs  it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"

[NewLiberty]

Using SNARKs  it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"

Like I said... its tasty bait.  Very tasty.
I still want to know where the hooks are as best as I can before I chomp down.

And there are other ways to do this particular proof, just not so real-time.

[brg444]

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?

Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

 

They don't have to reinvent SNARKS. Only understanding and implemention is required now. Surely you are not suggesting the Blockstream crew are the only ones able to do that.

Once the SPVproof maths have been properly reviewed and vetted by the community (much like Bitcoin or any other propositions are) then its open source code nature will make it available for anyone to tinker with and come away with their own applications and implementations.

The comparison to Google is somewhat pulled out of nowhere. Sure I imagine their success will be comparable but it is not because of them having built a service that benefits from network effect. They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field.

[Odalv]

Using SNARKs  it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"

Like I said... its tasty bait.  Very tasty.
I still want to know where the hooks are as best as I can before I chomp down.

And there are other ways to do this particular proof, just not so real-time.

user account verified by SNARKs. (exchange blockchain -> order book + hidden order book )
and exchangeBTC locked by 2wp SPV proof


:-) very tasty,

[brg444]

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

This is a blatant lie.

Blockstream submitted the whitepaper. The community will have to vet the technology and subsequently  make plans for it to be implemented, as a consensus.

SPVproof is neutral open source code. It favors no one. You could argue as cypherdoc does that they have a "head-start" in that they have already assembled a team of highly competent cryptographer to support their business model.

What everyone here fails to ignore is that ANY competitor could've done the same. As you have pointed out the technology was up for grabs and could've been conceptualized and proposed through a white paper by any other team of developers that care enough.

How is SPV federated when the miners do the work!?

So... name the 2nd company and prove the lie?


SPV proof is only half the game.  The proof provider is the other half.  All SPV does is verify what the proof provider is doing.
The "head-start" is about half a decade ahead of anyone else, and draws from a very small pool of experts.  Practically draining that pool.
It is disingenuous to suggest that ANYONE can do this.  It is taking very good advantage of a very privileged position.

The miners do the work of mining.  They do not do the work of SNARKs.  They do not create the proof, they do not cryptographically codify all the code that underpins the proof.  They simply verify.  The bulk of the work here is not done by the miners.

I cannot name you a company because obviously no other team of developers has had enough vision and foresight, or quity realize the potential of sidechains and build a company around them. Do not worry, they will come. In fact, this sounds like something Google, IBM, the actual Redhat, would be VERY interested in doing.

I will spare you the use of cypherdoc's favorite pet (Truthcoin) as an example because I too frankly doubt such amateurs would succeed in creating a sidechain than anyone but some very lost fools would adopt.

Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

[NewLiberty]

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?

Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

 

They don't have to reinvent SNARKS. Only understanding and implemention implementation is required now.
Surely you are not suggesting the Blockstream crew are the only ones able to do that.

So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.

Once the SPVproof maths have been properly reviewed and vetted by the community (much like Bitcoin or any other propositions are) then its open source code nature will make it available for anyone to tinker with and come away with their own applications and implementations.

The comparison to Google is somewhat pulled out of nowhere. Sure I imagine their success will be comparable but it is not because of them having built a service that benefits from network effect. They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field.

The comparison to Google is apt.  They capitalized on new compression mathematics that they didn't develop, but came out of the human genome project.  Blockstream is also hoping to capitalize on the network effect of Bitcoin, otherwise this would be developed on an altcoin and vetted more properly before plugging it into Bitcoin.

In the lab you can evaluate the code and technology, but not the economics.  At best you can model that, and even the best models fail constantly.
Remember 2008?  Greenspan's models failed.  They all fail ultimately.  The map is not the terrain.

[NewLiberty]

Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?

[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

they "think" Bitcoin is broken, just like many dead bodies along the way like:  Bitcorn, Kaminsky, Emin Gun Sirer, and thousands of others.  nope.  like i am fond of saying "most investors in cryptocurrenices are going to lose money".  yep, and it's b/c they don't understand Bitcoin.

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

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

scBTC cannot perform same functionality as SIDECURENCY.  they are both independent currencies riding on the same SC.  there is not even the possibility that any dev would fork SIDECURENCY into Bitcoin.  that doesn't even make sense as why would Bitcoin bring in a competing SIDECURENCY into the MC?  no, Bitcoin will forever have to live with SIDECURENCY mooching off value from Bitcoin itself.

why ? (Edit: scBTC cannot perform same functionality as SIDECURENCY.)
if 1 sideGOLD = 1 oz of physical GOLD then we have BTC <-> GOLD exchange
If 1 sideGOLD is not redeemable for 1 oz of physical GOLD then what is difference between scBTC and sideGOLD ?