Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable

=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.

but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.

You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.

and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.

and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.

The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.

right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as  holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)

[sickpig]

No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

wow, listen up everyone!  SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up!  never down!

this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. 

according to wikipedia Steve Jobs was 20 something when he founded Apple inc., just saying.
Ad hominem criticisms are always pernicious imho.

[Odalv]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

[Adrian-x]

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable

=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.

but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.

You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.

and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.

and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)

No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.

The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.

right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as  holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

[Adrian-x]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.

[hdbuck]

ohh 777 i like it



edit: BTW: The Best And Worst Performing Assets In The Most Volatile Month In Years
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/here-are-best-and-worst-performing-assets-most-volatile-month-years

[Odalv]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

[cbeast]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

If that is true, then the reverse is true

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)


1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.

[Odalv]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

If that is true, then the reverse is true

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)


1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.

Reverse is true if you find at least one fool who will sell you scBTC for cheap. b/c He can convert to BTC themself.  :-)

[cypherdoc]

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.

exactly.

[Odalv]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
[/quote

exactly.

That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

[Adrian-x]

edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.

Give me 7 good programmers and $600,000,000 and this proposed change to the Bitcoin protocol and I'll be close to guaranteeing this outcome if I am wrong sell scBTC -> BTC extract fiat.

[rocks]

Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP

why would price do this?

 

People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up

ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down?

No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

wow, listen up everyone!  SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up!  never down!

this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. 

otoh, please explain to all of us in detail how SC's, real or scam, can only make the BTC price go up?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

[rocks]

...

I agree with all that you have said.

Maybe I need to expand on my thoughts one last time in an effort to have you guys consider where I'm coming from.

I believe that Bitcoin, as is, is the closest form of perfect money we have ever seen.

Its shortcomings, or areas for improvement, in my opinion are as follow :

1. Long confirmation time
2. Privacy (anonymity) option not native as a user-defined option
3. Block size for scaling
4. Possibility that a better mining algorithm exist that could improve decentralization

Aside from the obvious scaling concern, Bitcoin could very well survive as digital gold without seeing any of the improvements I have mentioned. Its fundamentals are THAT strong.

For a long time I envisioned that my previous concerns would be addressed in more centralized type of schemes, or, as some would call it, through off-blockchain transactions.

Now with sidechains, we are provided with the possibility to create these chains that are attached to BTC's mainchain and function in an interoperable way using BTC as their transacting unit, effectively maintaining the ledger.

There, I believe, is our opportunity to create a certain number of sidechains that will work in synergy with the main chain and add considerable value to it.

We do NOT need a BILLION of sidechains. I am in agreement with Adam that it is likely only a relatively small number of them will get the proper developer support and most importantly, miners support. In that regard, I think a lot of people fool themselves into thinking that because the security model proposed in the sidechains paper is merged-mining then all of the sidechains will get this benefit. This is a grave mistake and is exactly why I have been adamant in saying that altcoins booted on top of a sidechain are not, in any way whatsoever, a greater risk to Bitcoin than regular alts are. For this reason, ANY concern that has for a premise the creation of a sidecoin is irrelevant to the discussion as it is NOT enabled by the sidechain proposition.

What we should be discussing and perhaps trying to poke hole in is the use of sidechains as utility features using a unit that is pegged 1:1 with BTC. This, the two-way peg, is the innovation behind the sidechain concept. Everything else has been possible before.

What could these utilities be? Well allow me to return to my list of Bitcoin as money shortcomings :

1. A sidechain allowing for faster transaction times.
2. A sidechain enabling anonymous transactions

My interest in this exercise is Bitcoin as money : store of value, means-of-exchange and unit of account. Traditionally we're looking for these characteristics : scarcity, divisibility, portability, verifiability, recognizability and fungibility. Now, with the proposed sidechains we improve the characteristic of portability (faster transactions) and enable the user-defined additional feature of privacy.

Now cypher here argues that the anonymous sidechain creates a risk for it to potentially to take over as the mainchain. I disagree with that as I see anonymity as a niche market in this world's current settings but I can certainly envision a day where this is no longer true and everyone has a need for 100% private transactions but the day is not now and so that point is moot. Meanwhile the two markets, black and white both can work in synergy and create value for each other.

The same could be said about faster transactions times. At a certain point we might have the technology to make this happen without any security tradeoff but at the moment I believe sidechains is the best decentralized way to go about it.

In this setting, transactions are plentiful in all three chains and miners have an incentive to mine all three of them. The ledger is preserved and there is no dilution or loss of value
 
Having said all of that, what exactly is the "risk created"? If it is that an innovative new sidechain makes Bitcoin obsolete then should we really call that a risk? Is it a risk to create a better form of money? Is Bitcoin a risk? I guess you could say it is but I think all of us here agree that its added value to society is worth the risk.

brg444, wholly agree with this. I think it is a great summary.

[cypherdoc]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
[/quote

exactly.

That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.

[Adrian-x]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.

exactly.

That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

No you are wrong SC as proposed secure BTC not the value - OT or oracles secure Both BTC and the value.

If we may already have what you think sided chains are why propose the protocol change.

[Odalv]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
[/quote

exactly.

That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)

[Adrian-x]

For those who dont know what OT is it is an open trust free toolkit that can do exactly what Side Chains propose to do.

it doesn't require Bitcoin or Bitcoin to be successful or leverage Bitcoins success it is independent it is just an innovation multiplier.

with OT http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page you can launch a  token coin with the same properties you seek in SC's - they call it Cash, or a decentralized exchange, and you can do everything else, and there is no risk to bitcoin the blockchain.

[Adrian-x]

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
[/quote

exactly.

That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)

I am looking forward to Decentralized exchanges SC dont just enable those other technologies can do it safer see OT, SC are another species and its you who hasn't addressed the problems they propose. (I presume for lack of understanding)

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.