Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Great post as usual, ZB.  I mostly¹ agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg.  And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all).  So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic.    

Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose?  The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK.

¹I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain.  If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.

Thanks for this, Peter. It brings me to something I've been thinking about recently: is the ledger we talk about really "with Bitcoin" (the main chain) in the first place? Or, in what sense is the ledger with Bitcoin or with a sidechain (or with a spin-off)?

If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.

It seems to me that, assuming the 2wp is perfect and permanent, if everyone moves to the sidechain, the ledger remains perfectly preserved as long as the sidechain continues working. Bitcoin is no longer serving the memory function (Bitcoin the protocol/chain is dead), but the memory function is being served by another chain (and Bitcoin the ledger lives on). The store of value function has been maintained, but not by what we'd usually want to call "Bitcoin."

There are some definitional ambiguities making this difficult to pin down. The word Bitcoin is used to mean:

• Bitcoin the protocol
  
  • Bitcoin the protocol maintained by the people now known as the core devs
  • Bitcoin the protocol adopted by the economic majority, or the majority of mining power
• Bitcoin the blockchain
• Bitcoin the ecosystem
• Bitcoin the ledger (who owns what percentage of the ledger)

The most notable thing about this list, I think, is that the first meanings are the most commonly used, but the last meanings are what really matter from an investor's perspective. Especially Bitcoin the ledger. A sidechain takeover threatens the protocol and the blockchain, but not necessarily the ecosystem, and not the ledger insofar as the peg is ensured and the sidechain is as sound as Bitcoin.

Now whether the sidechain will be as sound as Bitcoin is up in the air. I am skeptical for now, but again in a scenario where everyone is moving to the sidechain that condition has presumably been met in a most credible fashion.

To me, spin-offs are a safer and more elegant way to add functionality to Bitcoin the ledger. Perhaps if Bitcoin the ledger was recognized as the real essence of Bitcoin, rather than the protocol used for updating that ledger, spin-offs would be recognized by everyone as the obvious choice. What do you think?

[1714287562]

1714287562

[1714287562]

1714287562

[1714287562]

1714287562

[1714287562]

1714287562

[BldSwtTrs]

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.

What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?

[brg444]

More good stuff from Back :

"There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.

The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development.

Hill

"The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin"

bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right?

[Adrian-x]

What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

its a open source path, once taken could lead to the dark side, and with out the right incentive structure in place may be impossible to turn back.

[brg444]

What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

its a open source path, once taken could lead to the dark side, and with out the right incentive structure in place may be impossible to turn back.

I'm of the opinion that different incentive model is better than lost incentives

[cypherdoc]

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.

who you talking about?

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas.

The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin.
While I did include Roger Ver in my original objection, it was pointed out that he has (at least lately) kept his politics separate in public - so I've limited my objection in this reason to just Matonis.

The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens.

He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through

In the interest of being a tough guy like you, here is the rest of our PM discussion which you must have missed in your posting:

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

Do you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you is just one person? I'm getting that impression.

No. I'm saying that you either can't count or you were outright lying.  And I'm letting you know in private because I'm kind enough to not point our your innumeracy-or-dishonesty in public even though you've been rather uncivil towards me.

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.
Have you no shame?

Gathering input is good— but what you posted wasn't a genuine effort to get opinions it was a heavily biased rabel-rousing rant which has had the effect of causing people to make threats of violence against me. And if I'm uncharitable I might conclude from the fact that you never mentioned it in the main discussion that you intended to keep it hidden so that your incorrect claims would go unchallenged... or perhaps you just didn't think to mention it, it happens... but still stinks.

to which you replied:

GO fuck yourself you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity and no balls. You can't even handle a public discussion without getting some sycophant to shut it down when you're losing.

FUCK YOU and suck on a cactus.

I honestly believed that if it were actually a vote the position I was recommending would have eventually won out, the vote-stacking you were conducting only goes so far— as I said in the discussion, the only criteria I've seen I've seen suggested that would have kept Bruce Wagner, Nefario, or even Pirate40 off is the one of not including people where there was genuine concern— all hard large basis of public support. That this has been an enormous time and emotion suck, and it had reached the point where aantonop was name calling people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully.

[cypherdoc]

More good stuff from Back :

"There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.

The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development.

Hill

"The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin"

bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right?

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

[justusranvier]

who you talking about?

This thread is a good starting point:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013

[Adrian-x]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

True up to a point.
After which it doesn't.

it depends on what will substitute bitcoin, after such a "point".
if it's a better bitcoin I'm all for it. I guess we won't know
until it will happen.

if you have understood cypers arguments it doesn't have to be a better Bitcoin, and if your understood the adjustment in the incentive dynamic one can make it look better for the user and the miners, however there are tradeoffs, many here will dismiss them as inconsequential, but the biggest one for me is environmental impact on running this decentralize world, and this conversation hasn't even filtered through to that level yet or (mainly the expertise aren't here, and most Liberians like to marginalize it to the outskirts of the free market.  

[justusranvier]

What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?

btcd is the most complete in that it supports new block generation.

libbitcoin and bitcoinj are probably on the next tier.

Bits of Proof would have made it to this list had it not been successfully executed.

[BldSwtTrs]

What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?

btcd is the most complete in that it supports new block generation.

libbitcoin and bitcoinj are probably on the next tier.

Bits of Proof would have made it to this list had it not been successfully executed.

Thanks, and how can we monitor and foster the adoption of these alternatives?

[brg444]

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

Oh please.  

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though.

At the end of the day, these guys will be responsible for having develop technology that fosters innovations and the creation of companies, industries around Bitcoin while you'll remain cypherdoc, a username with a popular thread on a forum.

[brg444]

More good stuff from Back :

"There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.

The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development.

Hill

"The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin"

bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right?

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

With ZB we're now up to at least 5 people who have debunked that claim of yours. Maybe you'd like to work on your arguments.

[cypherdoc]

Zerg once asserted that i was probably the first venture capitalist to invest in Bitcoin back in 2011.  i believe he is right.

what i saw in Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV sound money system that had the potential to replace gold and silver and consume fiat currencies worldwide.  everybody knows i went out and acted on that belief by selling all my silver startingat its peak of 49 (avg out 44) in May 2011 and then almost all my gold in Aug 2011 (avg out around 1750).  i started buying BTC @ 1.60 the day before Easter Apr 2011 and for the rest of 2011 mostly into the bottom @1.98.  this vision has been more than fulfilled.

now i see an existential threat to the whole concept of Bitcoin as Money with this spvp.  it breaks the linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its ultrasecure blockchain.  this will dilute the entire money function and potential for Bitcoin as Money.  expect the price of BTC to drop if this is implemented.  you will no longer be able to describe Bitcoin as digital cash or digital gold or even as "apolitcal" money.  that's b/c of Blockstream control and the conversion of Bitcoin to a WoW trading platform.  you will have to say that Bitcoin is a trading platform that now offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, Truthcoin, and oh, btw, currency.  this will cause confusion and dilution.

what a shame.  we had a chance to change the world.

[cypherdoc]

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

Oh please.  

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though.

  

you make it sound as if Adam and Austin are crucial for Bitcoins future success. (they aren't)

why would i want to put my name on a paper with a flawed assumption?

[justusranvier]

Thanks, and how can we monitor and foster the adoption of these alternatives?

Build businesses and products that use them.

[cypherdoc]

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt.

also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also.

but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book.

[brg444]

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

Oh please.  

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though.

  

you make it sound as if Adam and Austin are crucial for Bitcoins future success. (they aren't)

why would i want to put my name on a paper with a flawed assumption?

I would bet they will be largely more relevant to the future of Bitcoin than you are.

I was referring to Bitcoin's white paper, not Sidechains'. You know, the one were Adam Back is credited with developing the proof-of-work system that Bitcoin runs under.

[justusranvier]

I was referring to Bitcoin's white paper, not Sidechains'. You know, the one were Adam Back is credited with developing the proof-of-work system that Bitcoin runs under.

Adam Back figured that proof of work could be useful and not where it could most usefully be employed.

He deserves credit for what he accomplished, and that credit in no way absolves him of proving his case in future endeavours.

Adam Back has to show his work, just like anybody else. Even Satoshi would be in that same category.

Past returns are not a guarantee of future results.

[brg444]

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt.

also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also.

but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book.

I can recognize this.

But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character.

These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin.

I think that deserves some respect