Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

if that is the point, it won't work.

Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.

If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.

If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.

The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail.

i very much do care b/c for each failure and loss of scBTC, an owner has to take a loss.  the bigger these losses multiplied by thousands of SC's, the greater the set back in terms of public perception.  we don't need that.

Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.

it's your responsibility to secure your own house.  that's why  you don't leave your front door wide open all the time.

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).

[cypherdoc]

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

faster tx times.

[notme]

Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?

if that is the point, it won't work.

Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.

If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.

If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.

The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail.

i very much do b/c for each failure and loss of scBTC, an owner has to take a loss.  the bigger these losses multiplied by thousands of SC's, the greater the setup in terms of public perception.  we don't need that.

Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.

it's your responsibility to secure your own house.  that's why  you don't leave your front door wide open all the time.

But it is also why you only put your belongings in a house that you've checked is secure.

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).

[NewLiberty]

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

This.
As part of MC core dev, there is some control over the ossification.

FWIW, I think these are good guys and I like/trust them just fine.
Anyone can be subjected to coercive forces though.  Not just greed coercion by gaining vast wealth, but gun to the head of your child or whatever can change one's mind about things.  This is why conflicts of interest at centralization points are especially troubling.  If you are in that position yourself, you may be putting those you care about at risk.  

That they would knowingly accept such conflicts of interest, leads me to question their wisdom.  
They may come to their senses yet.

[cypherdoc]

MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.

I'm not seeing that.

4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

p 13

As miners provide work for more blockchains, more resources are needed to track and validate
them all. Miners that provide work for a subset of blockchains are compensated less than those
which provide work for every possible blockchain. Smaller-scale miners may be unable to afford
350
the full costs to mine every blockchain, and could thus be put at a disadvantage compared to larger,
established miners who are able to claim greater compensation from a larger set of blockchains.

[cbeast]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).

Yes, they are real SC transactions on the SC blockchain (or whatever security measure they use), but Bitcoin users don't see them on the bitcoin blockchain.

The White Paper warns against using MM. In fact, scrypt ASIC miners might be tapped for SC security instead of SHA miners. Again your concerns seem to be about transaction revenue for Bitcoin miners. They can always reduce their fees and make the revenue up in volume by competing with the SCs. But then they have a bloated blockchain. Don't you think that SCs won't have the same problem? They may end up with bloated SC block chains and won't even have the benefit of a block subsidy.

[cypherdoc]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).

Yes, they are real SC transactions on the SC blockchain (or whatever security measure they use), but Bitcoin users don't see them on the bitcoin blockchain.

The White Paper warns against using MM. In fact, scrypt ASIC miners might be tapped for SC security instead of SHA miners. Again your concerns seem to be about transaction revenue for Bitcoin miners.

yes

They can always reduce their fees and make the revenue up in volume by competing with the SCs.

they're already losing money in some situations (small miners).  what room do they have to reduce fees further?

But then they have a bloated blockchain. Don't you think that SCs won't have the same problem? They may end up with bloated SC block chains and won't even have the benefit of a block subsidy.

[cbeast]

MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.

I'm not seeing that.

4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

p 13

As miners provide work for more blockchains, more resources are needed to track and validate
them all. Miners that provide work for a subset of blockchains are compensated less than those
which provide work for every possible blockchain. Smaller-scale miners may be unable to afford
350
the full costs to mine every blockchain, and could thus be put at a disadvantage compared to larger,
established miners who are able to claim greater compensation from a larger set of blockchains.

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

[cbeast]

Speaking of big leagues. I can't wait to hear the complaining from KNC when TI, Motorola, or Sony etc. decide to get into the Bitcoin mining biz.

[tvbcof]

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.

[NewLiberty]

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.

[NewLiberty]

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.

I disagree here.
Pretty much all of the concerns he cites are real risks, and not uncertainty or doubt.

Whether they rise to the level of risk/reward is another calculation entirely.  Some of us are comfortable with different levels of risk.  That is what makes a market work.  These may be acceptable risks for some, and not acceptable for others.

Only a fool ignores real risks, the wise person mitigates them (or avoids them) to the extent that it is profitable to do so.
To say that they simply don't exist, will make folks lose trust in the solution.

[cbeast]

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.

Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

[tvbcof]

Pffft!  WTF do you think Bitcoin is supposed to run on when the inflation (block reward) is used up?

There is nothing 'radical' and 'experimantal' about transaction fees.  They were part of the design.  You, my friend, are engaging in the FUD here.

The FUD is that artificial production quotas are necessary to keep transaction fees "high enough".

It's the same economic fallacy every single cartel argues for - you can literally fill textbooks with the number of examples of people who run to the government to implement various methods for restricting supply because without a production quota some disaster or another will happen.
...
Nobody tries to argue that we need a artificial limit on the number of loaves of bread that can be baked each day to stop bakers from producing an infinite number that nobody wants, but somehow when transistors are involved all well-known principles of supply and demand reverse themselves.

It really isn't the case that anything "technology" (as cbeast puts it) operates in some alternate bizarro world of reversed economics.

I hear ya bro.  I hope that 'artificial production quota' limiting BTC availability to 21 million doesn't drive you to crazy.

[NewLiberty]

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.

Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

Nonsense!
Enough hashrate for what?
http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brix
Current cost of 51% attack = $557,818,552
That is about the total value of ALL COINS TRANSACTED IN A DAY.
https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
By what metric is this "not enough"?  It could be just easily argued that it is "too much".

Just how many double spends do you think could be pulled off before the hostile miners get isolated?

[cypherdoc]

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain...
The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience.
Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated).  So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience.
So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security.

Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications.  When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.

until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate.  i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels.  there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo.

[cypherdoc]

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

Everything about Cyph's panties being all bunched up on this sidechains thing screams exercise of fud-douche-iary duty.  He's on the n-th pass of his tedious circle of fud, though occasionally I throw him a new line to play with (ironically since I'm a strong supporter of sidechains.)  The OpenTransaction guys are outed, but not cypherdoc as far as I know.

i just have serious concerns about my perceived breakage of the BTC currency to its blockchain link which i've always considered to be sacred.

maybe my conception of Bitcoin is wrong.  i'm looking for answers to those concerns.

[Adrian-x]

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

justusranvier just identified the why we think SC innovation brings enhancements to Bitcoin.  
it looks like SC propose to lock your Bitcoin away in exchange for using another system with a different incentive structure.

[NewLiberty]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

[cypherdoc]

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

now that's one helluva way to put it.

and i agree.