Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.

Well to be honest I won't act like I would say no 

you could use this thread as your resume.

[1714934979]

1714934979

[1714934979]

1714934979

[notme]

Instead of fearing what sidechains might do to bitcoin's value proposition, let's take a look at what is broken and how sidechains could help.  What has been the lesson of software monoculture time and time again?  Software monoculture increases the attack potential by ensuring high value for any found bugs/attacks.  This is right in line with the reasons for decentralization in the first place.  Worse than at a software level (which is actually fairly diverse and getting better), Bitcoin relying on one public key curve with a single set of parameters, with one single hashing algorithm used for mining is a disaster looking for a place to happen.  Sidechains would allow for innovative new ways of locking and unlocking coins according to more complex scripts, without exposing bitcoin itself to a turing complete scripting system.  Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  The sidechain itself can implement different cryptography, time locking with m-of-n early release capability, smart contracts, or many other possible innovations.  Bitcoin will remain the backbone value and transactional network, while we will be able to use our bitcoins in new and exciting ways without needing to resort to centralized services to implement these features for us.

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

[tvbcof]

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.

you complain even when I admit I was wrong? 

A sure sign of a desperate soul.  Don't worry about it...it's SOP from our friend here.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  

this caught my eye.

what happens if someone who really owns the SPV proof doesn't respond with a higher value proof b/c they're not monitoring the blockchain?

[Erdogan]

A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.

If the value is smaller, due to the peg, the number of coins converted will be small. Because receivers of sxBTC, when they have accumulated more than is needed, will move them back. The smallness of this volume may limit the number of scBTC to the degree that it is a complete failure. So in case of lower value, it is just like a random scamcoin, and thus no threat to bitcoin, nor especially advantageous for the users.

The reason that a sidecoin might be less valueable, is that it has to have better qualities in the areas where bitcoin could have been better: transaction cost, anonymity, and confirmation speed, but it also have to be just as good as bitcoin, or better, in all other areas.

And no, expandable coin number, keynesian style, is not better than bitcoin's eventually fixed supply.

I am not concerned.

[justusranvier]

Instead of fearing what sidechains might do to bitcoin's value proposition, let's take a look at what is broken and how sidechains could help.  What has been the lesson of software monoculture time and time again?  Software monoculture increases the attack potential by ensuring high value for any found bugs/attacks.  This is right in line with the reasons for decentralization in the first place.  Worse than at a software level (which is actually fairly diverse and getting better), Bitcoin relying on one public key curve with a single set of parameters, with one single hashing algorithm used for mining is a disaster looking for a place to happen.  Sidechains would allow for innovative new ways of locking and unlocking coins according to more complex scripts, without exposing bitcoin itself to a turing complete scripting system.  Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  The sidechain itself can implement different cryptography, time locking with m-of-n early release capability, smart contracts, or many other possible innovations.  Bitcoin will remain the backbone value and transactional network, while we will be able to use our bitcoins in new and exciting ways without needing to resort to centralized services to implement these features for us.

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

I don't think this is the best way to fix the broken bitcoin protocol development process.

It's a bandaid at best.

There is no inherent reason that adding signature algorithms shouldn't be in a release plan with other planned upgrades.

The real problem is the lack of credibility associated with the reference client developers.

None of them are enjoy enough community trust in terms of software engineering capabilities and also philosophical direction.

Side chains do not fix this problem.

[tvbcof]

...

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

Amen!  I've not been tempted to fire up a full client for a long time, but I will absolutely do so if I can see it helping out with this effort.  Sidechains are to me one of the few things which has given me hope for Bitcoin in the last several years.  I see off-chain stuff happening with exchanges and Coinbase like things, but these are generally unhealthy with the only redeeming thing being that they've allowed Bitcoin proper a longer lease on life.  Sidechains could address the crisis but in a healthy way which doesn't lead to centralization.  I just hope they can win the foot race against Gavin's exponential growth ideas for Bitcoin core, and I feel incentivized to try to assist to the extent that I can.

[brg444]

A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.

My opinion is a sxBTC value would not increase without first seeing a correlated increase in BTC. The reason for this is the sidechain in question is an additional value proposition to the use of Bitcoin itself and so the increase in price of the sidechain unit will be caused by an increase in the demand for Bitcoin because of the new feature provided by this sidechain.

As you have stated, the sidechain is only applicable to certain areas of transactions whereas Bitcoin covers them all. The logic is : no one is gonna buy some sxBTC on the open market just to be able to do faster or private transactions. They are going to buy BTC and then use some to store wealth, some to transact privately, some for faster confirmations.

[brg444]

The real problem is the lack of credibility associated with the reference client developers.

None of them are enjoy enough community trust in terms of software engineering capabilities and also philosophical direction.

Side chains do not fix this problem.

Lack of credibility amongst whom exactly? (Honest question btw)

I don't see many people discrediting gmaxwell, peterw, wladimir or gmax's software engineering capabilities. Maybe I'm not looking at the right places.

If that's truly a problem then we're shit out of luck cause I don't see any Bitcoin programming jesus coming out to save us. (except Satoshi of course  )


BTW, I'd truly like to have your opinion on my sidechain/fiat, bitcoin/gold parallel. Is it not an appropriate analogy?

[brg444]

...

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

Amen!  I've not been tempted to fire up a full client for a long time, but I will absolutely do so if I can see it helping out with this effort.  Sidechains are to me one of the few things which has given me hope for Bitcoin in the last several years.  I see off-chain stuff happening with exchanges and Coinbase like things, but these are generally unhealthy with the only redeeming thing being that they've allowed Bitcoin proper a longer lease on life.  Sidechains could address the crisis but in a healthy way which doesn't lead to centralization.  I just hope they can win the foot race against Gavin's exponential growth ideas for Bitcoin core, and I feel incentivized to try to assist to the extent that I can.

I believe I have read that sidechains do not solve the block size issue. Do you suggest otherwise?

[tvbcof]

I believe I have read that sidechains do not solve the block size issue. Do you suggest otherwise?

Absolutely!  It is nonsensical beyond belief that everyone's stupid coffee purchase is preserved in gory detail forever and replicated all over the world.  This is a very costly high strength solution which should be reserved for transactions that actually need it.  These piss-ant transactions are exactly the kind of load that sidechains should soak up.  On top of that, the latency of Bitcoin means it's not competitive for real-time purchases of any type.  I have to believe that the designer(s) recognized this.  And if that isn't enough, a persistent and detailed transaction record is a massive privacy issue which is (sometimes) worked around by even more churn in (and thus load on) the system.

[justusranvier]

BTW, I'd truly like to have your opinion on my sidechain/fiat, bitcoin/gold parallel. Is it not an appropriate analogy?

Start here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuhMBAhEmHQpP9lCvWs2kY0rPIIyCzGmF

Read the recommended reading.

Come back once the series is over.

[brg444]

BTW, I'd truly like to have your opinion on my sidechain/fiat, bitcoin/gold parallel. Is it not an appropriate analogy?

Start here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuhMBAhEmHQpP9lCvWs2kY0rPIIyCzGmF

Read the recommended reading.

Come back once the series is over.

I have read Szabo's paper.

Maybe you could address directly what it is that I have wrong....

[cbeast]

A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.

My opinion is a sxBTC value would not increase without first seeing a correlated increase in BTC. The reason for this is the sidechain in question is an additional value proposition to the use of Bitcoin itself and so the increase in price of the sidechain unit will be caused by an increase in the demand for Bitcoin because of the new feature provided by this sidechain.

As you have stated, the sidechain is only applicable to certain areas of transactions whereas Bitcoin covers them all. The logic is : no one is gonna buy some sxBTC on the open market just to be able to do faster or private transactions. They are going to buy BTC and then use some to store wealth, some to transact privately, some for faster confirmations.

I agree that side chain fungibility depends on its it's 2-way pegging to Bitcoin, but there can never be perfect 2-way pegging. There will be a penalty for the convenience of using the sxBTC. The side chains won't be a store of value any more than a line of credit is savings.

[justusranvier]

Maybe you could address directly what it is that I have wrong....

Not with the time constraints I'm under right now.

Maybe by the time part 6 of that series is finished you'll have your answer.

Even better, email Daniel about joining the Hangout so that you can ask questions directly.

[cbeast]

Maybe you could address directly what it is that I have wrong....

Not with the time constraints I'm under right now.

Maybe by the time part 6 of that series is finished you'll have your answer.

Even better, email Daniel about joining the Hangout so that you can ask questions directly.

After going through that series you will realize that their answers will be nothing but objectivist philosi-babble. Crypto-currencies are a social experiment and deserve the rigors of the experimental process. If this roundtable is any sort of scientific peer review, then there should be tl:dr abstracts available for public viewing. For Gods sake, even if it's just a formal meeting, at least have a secretary and take minutes!

[justusranvier]

After going through that series you will realize that their answers will be nothing but objectivist philosi-babble. Crypto-currencies are a social experiment and deserve the rigors of the experimental process. If this roundtable is any sort of scientific peer review, then there should be tl:dr abstracts available for public viewing. For Gods sake, even if it's just a formal meeting, at least have a secretary and take minutes!

No trolling.

[cbeast]

After going through that series you will realize that their answers will be nothing but objectivist philosi-babble. Crypto-currencies are a social experiment and deserve the rigors of the experimental process. If this roundtable is any sort of scientific peer review, then there should be tl:dr abstracts available for public viewing. For Gods sake, even if it's just a formal meeting, at least have a secretary and take minutes!

No trolling.

I actually wrote something much more scathing, but I will just laugh it off to myself. I'm sorry, but this isn't an Ayn Rand discussion, it's about technology.

[Adrian-x]

My understanding is a 1:1 peg is optional. And there is no mention of pegging the block rewards which would also be required to maintain a 1:1 pegged relationship.

1:1 is optional indeed but then the sidechain is no more a BTC application specific chain but a sidecoin, the younger brother of the altcoin.

Pegging the block reward? I think this explains your misunderstanding.

A 1:1 sidechain is not created with any unit in it. There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

There's no misunderstanding, there are valid applications for SC (I still think OT is a more practical solution for those trust free situations)  I realize there will be all kinds of SC, but in principal thay are off blockchain ledgers with a mechanical link to Bitcoin - some with tokens some without some with MM some without. But ones with tokens that require MM will have tx rewards and they will be writt to a separate ledger and they'll need to reward miners, that may not even be written in blocks, but the economic incentive will be the same. You can't say how SC will be create or used so I think it's dishonest to say there won't be any 1:1 pegs that have odd rules.

[Adrian-x]

There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

it doesn't have to be that way.

which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion.

 

I know!

But to be honest I couldn't care less about this. Scammers will scam and speculators, suckers and fools will lose money. Sidechain doesn't enable them. In reality it confronts them with the question I have presented before : now that 1:1 sidechains exist, what is so special about the features you are proposing that they need their own coin to function, because the guy next door is doing just the same thing BUT on a 1:1 peg.

If they answer me like smooth believe they will : "because I want it to be so". Then F*** them, I'll buy from your neighbour at the 1:1 shop, there's MUCH less risk.

I also feel it's wrong to say SC don't enable scammerers it does it on a whole new level. I also feel your use of the word buy implies a one way exchange in value not a risk free leveraged of one's Bitcoin.