Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

When I think of sidechains I think of local currencies, mixers, and many Shamir's Secret Sharing type instruments. No change to Bitcoin is needed. Bitcoin cannot accommodate all the crazy notions that sidechains will concoct. Obviously you would be required "buy in" to sidechains using a "sendmany" transaction to give yourself multiple sidechain assets. Replace the term "entangle" with "encrypt/decrypt" because that's how sidechains must manage Bitcoins. Since the sidechains cannot actually transact in Bitcoin, only the whole units that are invested will be tradable. How the sidechains manage the keys for the invested bitcoins is entirely up to the sidechain's security scheme.

[1714146819]

1714146819

[1714146819]

1714146819

[1714146819]

1714146819

[1714146819]

1714146819

[Iamyourdad]

Bitcoin reaching to to to the Moon.

[smooth]

Unless other people are doing this at the same time, when you move your coins back to the main chain, you will get the same coins back that you started with.

-- this assumes a very low volume on the sidechain. It also assumes that they will keep the block processing length short enough for something like this to occur. This is not smart and therefore will not happen, especially immediately after release. They can short the block times down once enough volume has been achieved.

It was hyperbole for illustration, obviously. I don't literally expect people to routinely get back the exact same coins, although it is plausible that could happen occasionally. The point being that the utility of it depends on it getting a lot of usage, much like mixers. More than Monero, because Monero does not depend on simultaneity in the same way.

Also see below.

I also think it is possible the market may simply reject the notion of adopting the Bitcoin currency for everything.
-- The entire history of network effects says otherwise. This is totally baseless logic.

We may well find that the reason for altcoins is not the features!

It isn't baseless. I observe that both the most successful alt by market cap (LTC) and the most successful alt by transaction volume and expansion of the crypto demographic (DOGE) have essentially no feature differentiation form BTC. The ability to create side chains that does little to nothing to reduce the appeal of these.

But my bigger point really is that none of these are that interesting, compared to improving Bitcoin and better competing with fiat. Monero has 0.1% of Bitcoin's market cap. That's seriously the reason for side chains?!  It had better not be.

[smooth]

I think the most interesting part is that it forces alt-coin developers to have a good answer to: "Why do you need a new completely independent new unit?"

Altcoins are 4% of the market.

Why are people so obsessed with them?

Because alts are the strongest theoretical argument for why bitcoin (and transitively, any crypto) may not retain value in the long run. In many people's eyes, alts represent an attack on bitcoin's core scarcity property. I (and you as well, I'm sure) have plenty of arguments for why it's likely that alts do *not*, in fact, represent a meaningful threat, but it's nevertheless a core reason why a lot of people who otherwise see the value of bitcoin fail to fully embrace it.

I think you misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that differentiated cryptos with superior features can compete with Bitcoin, because if that were the case, then the one with the best feature set would prevail and thus could not be competed against. The argument is rather that undifferentiated cryptos can compete, for example through marketing. For example:

the value of WitCoin should, in equilibrium, be equal to the marketing costs of its potential competitors. [link]

I don't agree with that argument, but sidechains don't help. Bitcoin-with-sidechains doesn't increase the marketing costs of potential competitors over Bitcoin-without-sidechains.

[lebing]

It isn't baseless. I observe that both the most successful alt by market cap (LTC) and the most successful alt by transaction volume and expansion of the crypto demographic (DOGE) have essentially no feature differentiation form BTC. The ability to create side chains that does little to nothing to reduce the appeal of these.

But my bigger point really is that none of these are that interesting, compared to improving Bitcoin and better competing with fiat. Monero has 0.1% of Bitcoin's market cap. That's seriously the reason for side chains?!  It had better not be.

Litecoin was successful because for awhile there was no innovation in alts. People drew a comparison of silver to gold.
Doge was an insanely successful meme.
Both have gone through their ideological usefulness and are now slowly dying once people realized how dumb it was to put money in them in the first place.

The point with sidechains is not to capitalize on the existing feature sets of the alts (anonymity, transaction time, etc), but to capture the future potential feature sets (turing complete + who knows what 3.0 will be...).

[smooth]

Litecoin was successful because for awhile there was no innovation in alts. People drew a comparison of silver to gold.
Doge was an insanely successful meme.
Both have gone through their ideological usefulness and are now slowly dying once people realized how dumb it was to put money in them in the first place.

The point with sidechains is not to capitalize on the existing feature sets of the alts (anonymity, transaction time, etc), but to capture the future potential feature sets (turing complete + who knows what 3.0 will be...).

That's all well and good, but the numbers don't lie. LTC and DOGE are still in the top 10. There is no evidence at all that DOGE is slowly dying. It is #5, or #4 if you exclude Ripple as incomparable as I do. I'm not sure about BSTX because I haven't looked closely it at, possibly that that should be excluded as well, which would make the #2 and #3 alts non-feature coins.

Monero isn't in the top 10, neither is Ethereum (measured by its IPO value).

I agree that sidechains can be about improving Bitcoin. But maybe that has nothing to do with alts, other than the fact all the innovation happening on alts is a symptom of Bitcoin's development process being broken, and side chains are an attempt to improve it. If so we agree.

[brg444]

Yeah I didnt take the time to respond out of the respect for the developers of Monero, but this is a pretty flimsy answer.

 Unless other people are doing this at the same time, when you move your coins back to the main chain, you will get the same coins back that you started with.

-- this assumes a very low volume on the sidechain. It also assumes that they will keep the block processing length short enough for something like this to occur. This is not smart and therefore will not happen, especially immediately after release. They can short the block times down once enough volume has been achieved.

I also think it is possible the market may simply reject the notion of adopting the Bitcoin currency for everything.

-- The entire history of network effects says otherwise. This is totally baseless logic.

We may well find that the reason for altcoins is not the features!

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

I agree.

It seems the main argument is Monero sidechain is problematic because it needs a large base of users.

The thing is if there's a market for monero than the same market can transfer to monero sidechain and make its privacy equally effective

[smooth]

The thing is if there's a market for monero than the same market can transfer to monero sidechain and make its privacy equally effective

Not entirely, because on a Monero sidechain your privacy is potentially influenced by other users moving to and from traceable Bitcoin. It may be that the nature of privacy is such that you don't really want any direct connection to something like Bitcoin. This is quite different from other features people might want, like microtransactions, asset exchange, etc. Those seem better fits for side chains, though microtransactions also suffers a bit from the network effect issue (you need your transaction counterparties on the same side chain, not just using Bitcoin generally).

We will see though. I pretty clearly said in my message that was reposted that if a high-privacy side chain becomes popular enough (particularly where doing anything useful doesn't require moving off the side chain), it can succeed.

Also I'd point out that by design Monero has slightly different monetary economics than Bitcoin. We rejected the mining-for-fees model and instead retain a perpetual maintenance mining reward. That can't ever be implemented in Bitcoin or a side chain (though demurrage could be).

[Adrian-x]

I'm beginning to doubt Maxwell (nullc) has a grasp on the economics of money as a ledger, and he seemed like the best of the sidechain team on the economic aspects. This seems like a basic error:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k7xwj/aantonop_sidechains_could_unleash_even_more/cliw3mi

What if sidechains, or a large part of their motivation, comes from not understanding the idea of spin-offs? Peter R has in places proposed spin-offs as a way to bootstrap an altcoin launch, but the relevance here is they serve many or perhaps even all the functions of sidechains, but without need to mess with Bitcoin.

I get a general sense from the sidechain crew that they don't understand Bitcoin as ledger, that the ledger is what matters, and that the protocol is secondary. To them, as coders, it must seem like the ledger and protocol are inextricably linked, but if you take Money as Memory seriously, the ledger is something outside the protocol and is merely updated by it. Understanding spin-offs requires fully internalizing this insight, and that is what I see no evidence of from the sidechain team.

This is good insight, in effect it's another manifestation of "the blockchain technology is innovative but I'm not sure Bitcoin the currency will survive" what we are seeing is a PR campaign that appeals to those who value the protocol over the economics that make it work, it's an attempt at leveraging Bitcoin the currency by launching protocol depending alt coins or economic dependent relationships.

It's prioritizing the chicken befor the egg. Bitcoin is amazing, and I think many miss out on the opportunity because they fear loss. For me I mind Bitcoin for about 9 months because I loved the idea and didn't buy any because I didn't trust it. It wasn't untill I had casascius coins shipped to my door that I realized this is real economic energy. Only then did I get it then I became a proponent and went out and invested in BTC, it was protocol first but only became money when I used it as a currency.  

These guys are still at the nervous to invest stage and are trying to leverage there skills to mitigate risk, they see the value in the network and why alts fail and can't out innovate Bitcoin so they've devised this mechanism to leverage the investment. For lack of understanding the economics that make the protocol fly.

[Adrian-x]

I think development on sidechains is a good thing and will open a new ideas and jobs.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/25/bitcoin-2-0-sidechains-and-zerocash-and-ethereum-oh-my/

The need that stimulates ideas and creates jobs isn't going anywhere it's there for the picking SC don't create the opportunity, if we were to meet I could pitch half a dozen ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

It's just an opportunity for those who haven't yet invested in Bitcoin the currency.

[smooth]

ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

How does that work?

[Adrian-x]

Question : who mines the spin-offs? Can the same concept of merge-mining be applied ?

Spon-offs can be mined in any manner including merge-mining.

Better still spin-offs leaves the field of mining and mining incentives open to innovation and disruption.

[marcus_of_augustus]

These guys are still at the nervous to invest stage and are trying to leverage there skills to mitigate risk, they see the value in the network and why alts fail and can't out innovate Bitcoin so they've devised this mechanism to leverage the investment.

Interesting insight into a possible alignment of motivations. Cryptopunks showed up, first started hacking then bought coins .... techies showed up, first built miners then bought coins ... VC's showed up, first started start-ups ... lawyers showed up, first started creating unnecessary regulations ... bankers showed up, first started by naked short selling. Explains why bitcoin is going through a soft spell until these last three groups get past their "How can I get into this by risking only some sweat equity first?" phase.

[Adrian-x]

ideas that are suppressed by the inclusion of SC.

How does that work?

First off SC's are inflationary, ( Bitcoin becomes like a reserve at the FED allowing banks to inflate at will)  so that deals with and stunts all ideas around Austrian principles, second look at mining and distribution, the argument you could make a better xyz that does something better than Bitcoin like faster or more effective micro  transactions is limited to the exponential growth in Bitcoin energy consumption used in mining to maintain the ledger, there are other trust free solution to that problem one could incentivize like bandwidth or storage to perform that function more effectively without distorting or sacrificing or artificially undermining the energy needed to maintain the blockchain as mining rewords diminish.

What we know in Bitcoin is mining rewards will diminish to 0 as a result with every halving the network becomes more energy efficient, and it will reach an equilibrium in my lifetime, it is only growing now given the price but after a fiew halvings it won't grow that fast, the mining power will be sufficient to support the value, and the value will be determined by utility and competition. If the competition or competing utility's are dependent on Bitcoin mining the appropriate investing in mining will be lacking, including the necessary mining innovation for the competition.  

[dillpicklechips]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

[Adrian-x]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

[dillpicklechips]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

[tvbcof]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

Turns out that it'd damn difficult for off-chain stuff NOT to develop.  That's why we have in late 2014 a fair amount of interest in Bitcoin worldwide and a pretty significant 'market cap' yet we are still not really pushing into the 7 TPS rate in a threatening way.

These reasonably high valuations have resulted in amazingly fast growth in the mining side of infrastructure.  Pretty much only the mining side, unfortunately, because that is where the designer(s) saw fit to provide a reward.  When I first read about Bitcoin I was under the misconception that transferring transactions was rewarded.  Then I thought that there was a mechanism imagined for it but it just was not implemented yet.  Now I see no sign of it.  Oh well.

The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.

[Adrian-x]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

Turns out that it'd damn difficult for off-chain stuff NOT to develop.  That's why we have in late 2014 a fair amount of interest in Bitcoin worldwide and a pretty significant 'market cap' yet we are still not really pushing into the 7 TPS rate in a threatening way.

These reasonably high valuations have resulted in amazingly fast growth in the mining side of infrastructure.  Pretty much only the mining side, unfortunately, because that is where the designer(s) saw fit to provide a reward.  When I first read about Bitcoin I was under the misconception that transferring transactions was rewarded.  Then I thought that there was a mechanism imagined for it but it just was not implemented yet.  Now I see no sign of it.  Oh well.

The problem with the high hashing capacity which has developed in conjunction with the low TPS, is that it is costing someone something like $30 per transaction.  (The high valuations are a factor as well since I've switched to $.)  The 'someone' is not the user.  Inflation is picking up the tab, but the inflation rate is, as we know, a declining feature.  It is somewhat concerning that there could be a lot of excess sha256 mining capacity with nothing to do when it is no longer profitable to mine.  'An idle min[e|d] is the devil's workshop' so they say.

A solution would be monster transaction fees.  But who (besides whacko's like me who already pay $10 transaction fees) want to pay them?

Sidechains to the rescue.  They could (almost not help but) create a situation where hundreds or thousands of user's Bitcon activity are aggregated into a single blockchain transaction.  This means that the transaction fee could be split that many ways and thus be felt as a very tiny and reasonable amount by individual users while the fee the miner gets would be quite generous indeed.

I don't see it like that, the blockchain is maintained by the nodes, the nodes are the ones paying the price for included transactions, they pay for bandwidth and storage. As a result they hold the ability to propagate the protocol  that is used (including mining fees). Miners on the other hand are competing for the fees, they have the ability to charge, but not at the expense of exclusion from acceptance by the nodes.

There is excess mining now and will be most likely untill the latter half of 2016,  but they won't be able to sustain themselves with high fees, (effectively they want huge transaction (in data size) not value to earn more while nodes want less.

SC take advantage of excess mining capacity and security today but will not allow mining power to scale to the appropriate size to protect the value stored on the blockchain in say 1 or 2 halvings. As the miners won't secure it if the value isn't reflected in there reward and fees. (SC depend on Bitcoin, boasting that they take the load off the network, adding value elsewhere at the protocol level) - seems like a blockchain cancer to me when I project 6 years ahead.  

[Adrian-x]

First off SC's are inflationary

How? I thought all sidechains are pegged using any ratio and must be backed by bitcoin. Even if 1 BTC = 100 Sidecoins the Sidecoins are still valued at 1/100 of a BTC and supply of BTC was never increased.

One of SC proponents described the BTC peg as part of a pie, if the side chain pays transaction fees for eg. then the BTC pie peg shrinks, followed by this won't be a problem because the ratio or scheme will be known upfront. (Can't find the quote but that's what I understood)

But the fees come from the sidechain coins and are able to be converted back to BTC if you wish.

Go back a fiew pages others have discussed it quite clearly.

Yes is the answer to your question, but SC are intended to give you back less Bitcoin than you put in, if they don't why have them just use Bitcoin - want faster transactions they say, what's the economic motivation to develop a SC that is faster than BTC if the developers can't benefit? None, there will be costs they are now pushing to have the ability incorporated at the protocol level.

Funny thing is so are many long time Bitcoin proponents supporting the idea, I'm thinking they're short Bitcoin and long on ability and political manipulation. I guess every problem looks like nail if you're a hammer.