Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

gmax:

So I invented a generalization for a cryptographic ring signatures and a number of other optimizations in order to make range proofs which are more efficient.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

ok, just a warning.  it's a general principle in cryptography to use established existing cryptographic systems that have been long tested, analyzed, and peer reviewed.  and DON'T invent your own.  that's the way it is.

sure, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer, we all know that.  but what are the odds he can invent a new bullet proof system as he claims?

[1500649606]

1500649606

[1500649606]

1500649606

[iCEBREAKER]

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   

[cypherdoc]

here is the entire talk.  everyone should read it.  it's good.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

but it's also complex and calls for lots of changes.  mostly on the SC's themselves, so that's good.  of course i don't understand it all, nor claim to.  but how many really do, including gmax himself?  it's time to put the thinking caps on and analyze.

[cypherdoc]

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   

still not debating the technicals i asked about.  sad.

so iCELatte, what happens when Blockstream wants to add the spvp to the core code and Gavin dissents?  they won't have "concensus".  what happens then?  fork?

[cypherdoc]

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   

btw, we already have seen the fallout from what happens when the core dev team is aligned under the umbrella of Blockstream --> paralysis of the block size increase proposal.

that's pretty clear from the timeline of things.  it would have better if they'd at least been honest about it, something like, "we object to an increase beyond 1MB b/c we have what we think is a better proposal to scaling coming online in just a few weeks.  when you see it, we think you'll agree that there is no need to adopt Gavin's proposal".

instead, they hid it, and even said conflicting things like "we even think blocks should be smaller than 1MB" and "SC's don't contribute to scaling".  now they they are saying that "SC's can contribute to scaling indirectly by allowing testing".

[uvwvj]

I think Gavin & Devs should meet at 8MB Blocks with at halving block since Blockstream's side chains are here now to assist. 

I also like the idea of looking at 1 minute blocks with 1 MB in the future.

[macsga]

I think Gavin & Devs should meet at 8MB Blocks with at halving block since Blockstream's side chains are here now to assist. 

I also like the idea of looking at 1 minute blocks with 1 MB in the future.

When there's will, there's a solution. Gavin should stay with what he's doing best; programming. Sometimes your silence says more than your mouth does and it's far more persuasive. There are far better solutions than a "I decide this and it's non negotiable". I truly liked the guy; maybe he had enough and wants out. This is a perfect way to leave IMHO and nobody says a word...

[JLynn171]

I saw a thing on t.v. last night talking about how great gold was and trying to sell off what they had at the same time... i felt like it was a load of shit because if something was really as great as they were trying to make it out to be they wouldnt be selling what they had, but buying more and hoarding for themselves

[justusranvier]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

[Adrian-x]

in the end, Bitcoin with larger blocks is what will win.  sidechains will die and take Blockstream with it.
   

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear" ... sidechains are inevitable because they are a logical evolution of the technology (if you study self-similar network properties arising from the emergent behaviours due to self-interested individual elements you will know this), with or without blockstream (i'm picking with at this point in time).

Sidechains as embodied in Sidechains Elements is an innovative and inevitable use of the technology, I love it well done, it's what's proposed to come next that concerns me, changing the protocol to allow SPV proofs is an abuse of centralized power.

[cypherdoc]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

[cypherdoc]

i think we should lift the cap altogether, add the spvp, and let her run.  we'll see which runs faster.

or, if they prefer, lift the cap and compare to the federated server model.

[cypherdoc]

somehow though, i don't think Blockstream wants the competition as iCE's reaction above would indicate. 

[justusranvier]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.

[Adrian-x]

So at this time it's Bitcoin hat has the most utility, alts aren't a threat, there will be hacks that can leverage that network, there will be investment opportunities and price growth in alts but for now as I see it

Until there is something that Bitcoin can't do and where BTC is not accepted because Bitcoin is a sly, imminent KYC expropriation paradigm. So now you know how such a coin will be marketed. Prepare your counter-arguments.

I'm advocating the most valuable feature of Bitcoin is the size of the network, that's what makes it better money than alts.

There is no counter argument I agree with your analysis,  the bigger network will be a SC with features that attract ignorant lambs. Hell I'll also invest in it to avoid discrimination and to preserve value, Its proof of principal starts with somthing as a merge mined anonymous SC, and used for elicit internet commerce, then it's pumped and dumped and miners from jurisdictions that benefit from attacking the network lock exiting to BTC through the peg during the process.

[cypherdoc]

i thought this was great:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/395r7h/the_real_reason_for_not_reaching_consensus_on/cs0vgxe

the best part:  "Decentralization is so important that as adoption grows we must force everyone toward centralization." It's ludicrous.

[sickpig]

Some of those new opcodes look great.

When will they make it into Bitcoin?

maybe never.  depends on how they perform on the SC.  they already are in Core but have been disabled.

from a cursory look there are only 2 novel proposed opcodes, namely:

• A new DETERMINISTICRANDOM operation which produces a random number within a range from a seed.
• A new CHECKSIGFROMSTACK operation which verifies a signature against a message on the stack, rather than the spending transaction itself.

all the rest are OPCODEs that were disabled in 2010 due to security concerns.
 

I mean the blinded amounts.

That's exactly the kind of improvement that should be added to the protocol.

what you're referring to with blinded amount? signature http://elementsproject.org/#signature-covers-value

edit: or "confidential transaction" (http://elementsproject.org/#confidential-transactions) ?

[NewLiberty]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

[majamalu]

In the great Bitcoin experiment of ours...
It is increasingly likely that we will experience a scarcity market for transactions, at least for a time.
It will be some interesting data.
I doubt it will be the 'end of bitcoin', or whatever the rush to increase folks are worrying over.

Full node volume has declined from a high point of about 250K in 2011 to maybe less than 10K nodes?
With the only incentives for running a full node being non-economic, primarily informational or possibly security concerns, it will be interesting to see if that rate of decline stabilizes somewhere.

250K was not due to economic incentives. There was no choice back then.

[Adrian-x]

This is a key point on my todo research list. Federated servers don't work? Or wouldn't be trusted by the market?

Federated servers are just a hack to be able to test prior to getting the necessary softfork. Without the proper two-way peg where coins are secured by an SPV proof against the Bitcoin blockchain, this is fundamentally no different than any other off-chain solution where coins are being held in some form of custody.

This needs to be proved, It doesn't appear to be true, any business relationship is based on trust. The federated service will be (should become) as trusted as the service or product you purchase 100% dependent on reputation.

e.g. if i buy a particular security (product / service) I trust (1) it is what it is, this is reputation and then I must trust the person proposing the business opportunity, trust (2), this is reputation.
If trust (2) can be violated, guaranteeing trust (1) is irrelevant because it was misrepresented by an abuse of reputation. arguing that we need SideChains to increase trust (1) is not a valid reason to reduce trust, we still are reliant on reputation.

Gmax and Lukejr and other SC proponents see trust (1) as a holy grail, news flash, the mortgage backed securities if constructed in a trust free "blockchain technology" environment would still be dependent on the reputation of subjective evaluations and selling false promises.  

solving the reputation dilemma is more valuable to society, this technology without Federated servers is not innovation in trustlessness, just because it is done in a trust free way using SPV proofs doesn't solve the problem of trust as reputation, if anything it allows reputation to go unscathed as the SPV proof executed a multistig contract that was agreed, it executed flawlessly as both parties agreed, too bad you trusted some subjective AAA reputation system.