Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

[1714244701]

1714244701

[cypherdoc]

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

[justusranvier]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

[cypherdoc]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

[brg444]

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

The SPVP introduces a new proof verification method. It does not guarantee that everyone will be able to leverage it because to do so you have to depend on miners adopting your chain.

This is a very shaky proposition and it is very likely that federated servers will have an important place in the sidechain ecosystem. In fact, any of the proposed malicious schemes you have described will likely use that format.  

Only community approved and adopted sidechains will be able to command MM from the miners. These are very likely to be utility chains that are 100% open source, transparent and serves the public good.

The very SPECULATIVE chains you are so concerned about will most certainly be supported by federated servers. The reason is evident and logic very intuitive : since it is impossible for them to guarantee a sufficient enough level of MM by miners, they will opt to provide "security" through a more centralized proof mechanism.

I believe you had agreed that only a certain number of chains would be MM to provide a security level equivalent to BTC. Any others are subject to the necessary centralization tradeoff.

It is for that reason that a great majority of Blockstream's chains built for clients will be AT LEAST bootstrapped on top of federated server model. It only makes sense.

Therefore, yes federated model sidechains will absolutely gain traction and detach a considerable portion of the BTC assets off the mainchain. Their off ramp, while different from SPVproof, results in the exact same mechanism.

SPVproof only enables the possibility to bestow the ultimate decentralization to the chains that command this feature. They are most certainly not an open door that allow anyone to magically "siphon" more BTC than they would through a federated sidechain.

[brg444]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

Promissory notes engineered on the protocol level are a whole different animal : no counter-party risk.

[Odalv]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

it will be hard lesson you will be learnt in the next year.

[brg444]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

[cypherdoc]

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

The SPVP introduces a new proof verification method. It does not guarantee that everyone will be able to leverage it because to do so you have to depend on miners adopting your chain.

This is a very shaky proposition and it is very likely that federated servers will have an important place in the sidechain ecosystem. In fact, any of the proposed malicious schemes you have described will likely use that format.  

Only community approved and adopted sidechains will be able to command MM from the miners. These are very likely to be utility chains that are 100% open source, transparent and serves the public good.

The very SPECULATIVE chains you are so concerned about will most certainly be supported by federated servers. The reason is evident and logic very intuitive : since it is impossible for them to guarantee a sufficient enough level of MM by miners, they will opt to provide "security" through a more centralized proof mechanism.

I believe you had agreed that only a certain number of chains would be MM to provide a security level equivalent to BTC. Any others are subject to the necessary centralization tradeoff.

It is for that reason that a great majority of Blockstream's chains built for clients will be AT LEAST bootstrapped on top of federated server model. It only makes sense.

Therefore, yes federated model sidechains will absolutely gain traction and detach a considerable portion of the BTC assets off the mainchain. Their off ramp, while different from SPVproof, results in the exact same mechanism.

SPVproof only enables the possibility to bestow the ultimate decentralization to the chains that command this feature. They are most certainly not an open door that allow anyone to magically "siphon" more BTC than they would through a federated sidechain.

c'mon man, you do realize what you're saying and how contorted it is?  let me summarize:

"b/c spvp SC's are insecure b/c they won't be MM'd, Blockstream will develop federated SC's instead.  b/c federated SC's will prevent miners from collecting tx fees, we should therefore adopt spvp SC's even though they're insecure and then they can be MM'd." 

[cypherdoc]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

yes, and they can't get to 1st base unless the spvp is inserted into source.

[cypherdoc]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

it will be hard lesson you will be learnt in the next year.

why?

[justusranvier]

no counter-party risk.

Bullshit.

Find one credible source who will go on record saying that sidechain units carry zero counterparty risk compared to bitcoins.

Actually the sidechains whitepaper was fairly explicit about saying the opposite.

Reducing counterparty risk is a worthy goal, however one can't build solutions to a problem that one refuses to acknowledge.

Anybody who thinks that counterparty risk for promissory notes can be eliminated is delusional.

Managed? Sure. Reduced? Absolutely. Eliminated? Never.

[brg444]

c'mon man, you do realize what you're saying and how contorted it is?  let me summarize:

"b/c spvp SC's are insecure b/c they won't be MM'd, Blockstream will develop federated SC's instead.  b/c federated SC's will prevent miners from collecting tx fees, we should therefore adopt spvp SC's even though they're insecure and then they can be MM'd." 

  You are so basic.

SPvp SC's will be MM only at the extent that they support a considerable part of the economy and enable a service/feature/application that command a level of decentralization & security on the same level as BTC.

Examples are utility sidechains that serve a money function : fast txs, anonymity. I'm sure there will be more of these but not 1000s or BILLIONS.

These chains are likely the ones that will be supporting a majority of the network transactions, surely enough to satisfy the miners' incentives.

Federated servers sidechains will support more corporation type, centralized sidechains that demand more control and oversight over the chain's parameters. They will be the model of choice for any entity that cannot secure the backing of a majority of the mining network.

SPVProof enables a balance between both types and provides an insurance for the miners incentives.

[brg444]

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

yes, and they can't get to 1st base unless the spvp is inserted into source.

Yes they can : create a speculative federated sidechain today!

[brg444]

no counter-party risk.

Bullshit.

Find one credible source who will go on record saying that sidechain units carry zero counterparty risk compared to bitcoins.

Actually the sidechains whitepaper was fairly explicit about saying the opposite.

Reducing counterparty risk is a worthy goal, however one can't build solutions to a problem that one refuses to acknowledge.

Anybody who thinks that counterparty risk for promissory notes can be eliminated is delusional.

Managed? Sure. Reduced? Absolutely. Eliminated? Never.

It can be reduced to the same extent that counterparty is reduced in Bitcoin.

Sidechains are open source code integrated to Bitcoin on the protocol level. If you trust the maths and they are sound, I don't see how they are any less protected from counterparty risk than Bitcoin is. They are effectively an extension of Bitcoin.

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.

[justusranvier]

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.

Please explain the mechanism via which merged mining solves the distributed consensus problem.

[brg444]

Please point out the additional counterparty risk of a 1:1 open-source & properly implemented sidechain that is MM 100%.

Please explain the mechanism via which merged mining solves the distributed consensus problem.

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.

I expect your usual candor in your next response.

[justusranvier]

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.

I'm insinuating that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to counterparty risk, centralization, or distributed consensus.

The reason I know this is because of how you worded your previous comment - your scenario was a "100% merge mined" sidechain.

Of course that makes sense, right?

1. Hashing is what makes Bitcoin secure
2. More hashing equals more security
3. Therefore any chain that has an equal amount of hashing power as Bitcoin will be equally secure.

Sounds great, except the first premise is false, therefore so is the conclusion.

Hashing isn't what secures Bitcoin - opportunity cost is what secures Bitcoin.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is not qualified to evaluate the security properties of sidechains.

[notme]

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.

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you?  

Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.

 

of course! to no surprise cypher doesn't catch an obvious sarcasm/joke attempt

Exactly, weaseling his way out of answering the question.  I really do regret helping to create this monster, but we are all foolish from time to time.

The biggest tip off to his dishonesty is that he never admits the smallest imperfection.  Only idiots and con men display such behavior, so which is it cypher?

[brg444]

Are you insinuating that this mechanism leads to more centralization and therefore more counterparty risk?

Stop playing around and just say what's on your mind, you don't appear to me to be someone who usually play the cat and mouse game.

I'm insinuating that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to counterparty risk, centralization, or distributed consensus.

The reason I know this is because of how you worded your previous comment - your scenario was a "100% merge mined" sidechain.

Of course that makes sense, right?

1. Hashing is what makes Bitcoin secure
2. More hashing equals more security
3. Therefore any chain that has an equal amount of hashing power as Bitcoin will be equally secure.

Sounds great, except the first premise is false, therefore so is the conclusion.

Hashing isn't what secures Bitcoin - opportunity cost is what secures Bitcoin.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is not qualified to evaluate the security properties of sidechains.

It seems to me attacking any sidechain that is mined by all miners offers no less opportunity cost than attacking BTC.

I don't claim to understand everything. I do know that comparing sidechains to mere promissory notes is disingenuous in itself.

Bottom line is it appears to me sidechains are our best attempt so far at reducing the counterparty risk implied by off-chain/sidechain schemes.