Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cbeast]

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

[1714776023]

1714776023

[1714776023]

1714776023

[1714776023]

1714776023

[Adrian-x]

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make result
a) must to have -> feature is implemented
b) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works good
c) scam -> feature RIP

It is one of 1,000 ...  advantages of SC

that's right. sidechains are essentially a laboratory of innovation akin to altcoins but supported by and supporting Bitcoin's network effect

I see this as an attempt at creating altcoins and Bitcoin 2.0 contracts, by leveraging the existing Bitcoin network.

Bitcoin's support grows by increasing it's network effect, it's network effect grows by investing and storing value in the ledger.

 Bitcoin is not supported when one grows value elsewhere leveraging the existing value of the network.

There are more effective ways to innovate and they should be explored if they fail come back in 3 to 5 years and let's consider SC then.

[cbeast]

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?

Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)

[Adrian-x]

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?

Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)

Thanks
And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.

[lebing]

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.

bingo. nice post.

[cbeast]

Pegged SCs can increase BTC TPS 5 fold just by using the sendmany function. Then the SC can then use SSS magic to subdivide the bitcoins into smaller denomination SC coins but still be pegged to Bitcoin. Then all they need to do is build a faster cheaper blockchain.

What is TPS and SSS?

Transactions per second and Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)

Thanks
And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.

Shamir's Secret Sharing (and its derivatives) is a basic cryptology method that multi-signature transactions and dark wallets use. Besides, I'm conjecturing about what SC may become, not as it is currently proposed, which has minimal information available. All I'm saying is that SCs can enhance Bitcoin kind of like building a stock car into a racing machine.

[Adrian-x]

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.

bingo. nice post.

So what do you think happens to sha256 mining when the real transaction cost shrinks from $30 per transaction down to $1 or $0.05 (considering tvbcov is arguing they stay high or go higher and we do most transactions on SC's.) Are the predictions of higher transaction costs creditable or are they founded on a linear projection that mining will need to charge X to stay viable in today's climate?

The facts are we know the reward that makes the real transaction cost is halving every 4 years and can ultimately only be sustained by use of the network.

I haven't been convinced that transaction costs will increase to sustain my mining profit without innovating the energy cost to below market rates and I'm actually convinced BTC transaction costs will decrease over time.

SC propose a threat if you considered lower transaction costs, costs that are driven by the nodes (protocol validators/ hosts) not the miners, SC will leave the network vulnerable to attack from the very miners who are disenfranchised by the off chain growth.

[dEBRUYNE]

In addition to our speculation about banks failing the (ECB) stress test.

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-25-eurozone-banks-fail-ecb-stress-test-2014-10

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr141026.en.html

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/ssm/assessment/html/index.en.html

[NewLiberty]

-- 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).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

[lebing]

-- 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).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

[NewLiberty]

-- 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).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

[rpietila]

-- 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).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

Also the current beaten state of Monero (€ 2.5 million mktcap) shows that:

- the market never gave any 1%+ chance for Monero achieving anything in the first place;
- anything can make it go up from here, even something totally unrelated to anonymity;
- a very small number of people can keep it in the current value as a community coin, regardless what BTC does.

[NewLiberty]

-- 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).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

Also the current beaten state of Monero (€ 2.5 million mktcap) shows that:

- the market never gave any 1%+ chance for Monero achieving anything in the first place;
- anything can make it go up from here, even something totally unrelated to anonymity;
- a very small number of people can keep it in the current value as a community coin, regardless what BTC does.

I can't predict what will happen, but I would counsel people against taking investment advice from someone that confuses an announcement of a theoretical plan with an "achievement".

I'm a fan of sidechains.  I'm also a fan of a ring-signature side chain, and personally advocated this to the monero-dev folks and to the monero economic workgroup.  To be very clear on the matter: Many things that are happening are simply done and not announced ahead of time.  Announcing an idea even with a plan, is often not the best method, if hype isn't followed swiftly by a useful delivery, it is not better than FUD, and generally worse.

[Odalv]

Exchange sideChain
 - Few(let's say Bitstamp, Huobi, Circle, BitFinex, BitPay) big btc-exchanges can create Federated peg (somethig like multi-signature address 4 of 5)
 - they will create new currency ExchangeBTC conversion rate 1:1
 - there are only 5 miners (the Federated exchanges)
 
ExchangeBCT will have superior properties:
 - any exchange user can create new ExchangeBTC by depositing BTC into special 4 of 5 multisignature address.

 - you can use it on exchange same as bitcoin (it is "backed" by bitcoin)

 - it can be fast transfered between this exchanges

 - it is hard to stole it because there are required 4 signatures to withdraw bitcoins (and in case only ExchangeBTC is stolen from exchange wallet then this can be easy reversed by exchanges)

 - maybe it can be also traded  againts BTC

[inca]

Having ruminated over side chains for a bit I think they in principle could be a good thing for btc adoption but may change what btc is today irreparably as a concept. If they operate a fixed peg via the 'two way peg' to btc then they are not inflationary. I think any side chain which has any kind of float between btc and SC will struggle to find btc users, thought I can see money being chased by unscrupulous SC developers in this type of enterprise initially, and this could be potentially inflationary or disruptive to btc. Fixed peg approaches will be stuck with the price volatility that btc currently enjoys though years in the future this may not be a problem.

If we take the moneroSC which potentially boasts anonymous coin transfers between individuals on the side chain. Then really it is just a dark pool of locked BTC changing hands as monero tokens off chain. The off and on ramp addresses can still be tracked which may limit the attractiveness if it is not widely used. I can't see this taking off to be honest except in black market use. In time the bitcoin blockchain will be mapped out by governments and tied to identities closely. On and off ramps will be monitored closely by Western governments through regulation.

Say someone (blockstream) starts the sidechain nanoBTC, designed to be ultra low transaction fee, and near instantaneous, suitable for micropayments online and in shops etc. The aim being to support huge volume (de)centralised transactions off chain but denominated in pegged side chain btc. The main stumbling blocks for adoption like any alt would be utility and acceptance as a currency. It would then need to be supported by big players in the industry (bitpay, coinbase, circle, other payment gateways etc) who agree to integrate nanoBTC with a big grand opening at the outset. It could have a branded corporate america friendly logo.

How would that work in practice? At first swapping between standard BTC and nanoBTC is possible via a single click in your centralised wallet, allowing the security conscious to maintain funds in native BTC with a hotwallet in nanoBTC. Perhaps this happens 'under the hood' without the consumer realising during transactions between certain companies. Over time, barring security disasters people gradually stop using btc natively for transactions and instead use nanoBTC as cash everything online. NanoBTC becomes a ubiquitous payment token but is still exhangeable for BTC and the bitcoin network is maintained as before with relatively few TPS, simply acting as a backing store of value, and in time average joe is unaware of btc at all.

BTC is held natively as a commodity by investment houses and investors in ETF's. Perhaps in time the value of BTC is actually maintained by use of nanoBTC globally.  Whoever controls the incentives behind the nanoBTC network gets very rich.

Edit: this could be how the unit change dilemma is solved, allowing regular joe public to not be put off by the psychology of spending hundreds/thousands of $ for a small amount of btc.

[Dusty]

And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.

Shamir's Secret Sharing (and its derivatives) is a basic cryptology method that multi-signature transactions and dark wallets use.

Not quite: SSS is a method to "divide" a private key in N pieces, so that M of them are sufficient to rebuild the original key and sign a transaction (even not a multisig one).
When the key is rebuilt there is an attack surface because a malware (or a human fwiw) could steal the key.

Multisignatures on the other hand works having different keys in different places and they never need to be brought together to sign a transaction, this way if an attacker is able to steal one of them, the others remains protected.

So, while the fact that M persons must act to prepare a transaction is similar, the technicalities in which this is is made is quite different, and this brings very different kind of security.

TL;DR: Use multisig, not SSS.

[sidhujag]

25 euro banks failed stress tests...bullish btc

[Adrian-x]

25 euro banks failed stress tests...bullish btc

Yes but...
The narrative goes like this: the age cyber punks has ended techies are taking over, the age of techies is being superseded by  Libertarian ideologists, who get told to move over for silicon valley, who are now under threat from keynesian inflationists 

[brg444]

https://xapo.com/post/what-is-bitcoin-the-best-money-in-human-history/

a nice write up from Ted Rogers at Xapo.

obviously inspired by Wences speeches but still a good, condensed, text version

[brg444]

just had a good laugh 

Therefore, for any of you out there thinking that bitcoin is dead in the water, it might be.  The currency is not the important factor.  The important factor is the cryptographically secure blockchain protocol, as this gives the protocol the ability to record and transfer value without trusted third parties such as banks.  That technology, given to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto, may just transform everything including banking.

http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2014/10/the-importance-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-blockchain-to-banks-and-everyone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter