Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

they claim to have customers lined up with many orders of magnitude more liquidity than exists in Bitcoin today.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Is this another incarnation of your famously stupid GOVcoin scenario?

Tragic I say... Your only see the paranoiac, conspiracy scenario because of your blinders.

Here is the glass half full scenario :

Their big shot customers want to build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin using sidechains supported by the BTC unit

They want to inflate bitcoin but they dont want to invest in it and pump up the price.

[brg444]

oh btw I a had a put on a handfull of SC coins, you thought i lost 30% of my mining income but my overall income is up 40%.  

why do you keep ignoring this?
the intensives that prevent a 51% attack today are diminished as SC take value out of the Bitcoin Blockchain.

so effectively this is the same as saying miners should all short Bitcoin, collude to crash the blockchain for a quick come up and essentially destroy their long term revenue stream

you don't realize that killing the mother chains affects all the other connected chains and their value. you refuse to acknowledge this is an ecosystem of chains.

it amazes me the stories you have to come up with to support your stance. I guess this is what happens when you are backed up in a corner

[cypherdoc]

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

[brg444]

they claim to have customers lined up with many orders of magnitude more liquidity than exists in Bitcoin today.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Is this another incarnation of your famously stupid GOVcoin scenario?

Tragic I say... Your only see the paranoiac, conspiracy scenario because of your blinders.

Here is the glass half full scenario :

Their big shot customers want to build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin using sidechains supported by the BTC unit

They want to inflate bitcoin but they dont want to invest in it and pump up the price.

I thought we had effectively dismissed your inflation scenario. Care to explain again how that is supposed to happen?

[Cortex7]

My Noob Questions:

Say a sidechain were created for paypal:

Would paypal have to buy existing coins and move them to sidechain?

When in that sidechain these coins would have same fiat price as existing chain coins?

[brg444]

My Noob Questions:

Say a sidechain were created for paypal:

Would paypal have to buy existing coins and move them to sidechain?

When in that sidechain these coins would have same fiat price as existing chain coins?

The better question is what is the use case for a paypal chain?

Paypal is used to send money over the world. Bitcoin does that natively so honestly I don't see it.

[cypherdoc]

geezuz crimony.  i actually AM starting to feel bad:

[NewLiberty]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

[Adrian-x]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

I had to laugh thanks NL, and brg444 I'm sorry I dragged you along I'm just looking out for my and your Bitcoin.
Have a great evening.

[brg444]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

[tvbcof]

My Noob Questions:

Say a sidechain were created for paypal:

Would paypal have to buy existing coins and move them to sidechain?

When in that sidechain these coins would have same fiat price as existing chain coins?

My estimation would be this:

Paypal decides to run a sidechain.

I have a Paypal account that I use to buy stuff on e-bay.  The way I've always done things is to keep an account charged up with the funds I think I might need.  Currently I do this through an ACH transfer a couple times per year (same mechanism as Coinbase uses.)  This is true in my case right now BTW though I guess not everyone does this.

I have some BTC.  Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain.  I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.

Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money.  I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that.  As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else.  I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue.  For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right.  If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.

[rocks]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing. 
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

The better question is what is the use case for a paypal chain?

Paypal is used to send money over the world. Bitcoin does that natively so honestly I don't see it.

How about: cheaper transactions or faster confirmations than on the blockchain?

I have some BTC.  Rather than go through Coinbase to get fiat then do another ACH to charge my Paypal account, I would just peg some BTC on the Paypal sidechain.  I would expect to be able to use my paypalcoin to charge my paypal account, or to convert back into BTC as I saw fit.

Paypal is an interesting case because it is one where I could see Blockstream making some money.  I would never trust Paypal for privacy or anything like that.  As always, I would use them for what I needed and not use them for anything else.  I'm not all that worried about them running off with my coins because they are mainstream and I could sue their ass so that's not a big issue.  For these reasons I don't really mind if their sidechain is closed-source, but I do want to know that they've done things at least a little bit right.  If they commissioned Blockstream to do the work and produce the binaries, that would be enough for me to trust the binaries to the limited extent that I need to in order to use their service.

This scenario seems needlessly complex right now: it would be far simpler (and would drive adoption) if ebay vendors directly accepted BTC. But down the road tx fees will likely be relatively heftier, and use cases for microtransactions greater.  SCs are presented as a possible solution to these issues. What (trustless) alternatives do the SC skeptics propose?

[rocks]

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

The SC two-way peg mechanism lets you move information (in this case bitcoins) from one blockchain A to another blockchain B, use that data (in this case scBTC) however the new blockchain B allows, and then move them back to the original blockchain A.

The new blockchain B (sidechain) could be setup any way it wants. The design space is entirely open. The one constraint is the 2-way peg. If blockchain A transfers 10 BTC to blockchain B, then regardless of whatever happens on blockchain B, blockchain B can only reclaim 10 BTC on the main blockchain A.

I'd imagine most sidechains would start at a their own block 1, and operate from there. They may have coinbases in found blocks or may not. They may use sha256 or something (anything) else for POW. They may use ECDSA, or something (anything) else. If they try something that fails and is hacked, it only effects people who transferred value to that sidechain as the sidechain can only reclaim the original value transferred to it. If they have coinbases it does not change the fact that they can only reclaim the original BTC that were sent.

I'd imagine most sidechains will have no coinbase on use the same crypto as Bitcoin so transaction fees alone would attract miners to MM and thus benefit from Bitcoin's hashrate.

There could also be centralized sidechains that trust a single entity. (i.e. a paypal coin) Here no real mining needs to happen because the centralized entity would maintain the block order. Only people comfortable with that arrangement would use that sidechain. The centralized entity could do whatever it wants, but is still limited by the 2-way peg with the main chain.

In all these cases though the concept of a single 21M BTC ledger is preserved through the 2-way pegging system. This maintains the economics of Bitcoin and it's role as sound money. Bitcoin is the parent chain and all sidechains are children chains dependent on the Bitcoin genesis chain, the total value of all will only total 21M BTC at any given time.

The thing to remember is Bitcoin is the root of the system, within a world of many sidechains Bitcoin is still the genesis chain, there is still only one ledger due to the 2-way peg. If anything starts to screw up Bitcoin (such as miners exiting due to no fees) it effects all and the community would work to fix that. March 2013 showed how focused everyone is in the face of existential threats.

[cypherdoc]

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

The SC two-way peg mechanism lets you move information (in this case bitcoins) from one blockchain A to another blockchain B, use that data (in this case scBTC) however the new blockchain B allows, and then move them back to the original blockchain A.

The new blockchain B (sidechain) could be setup any way it wants. The design space is entirely open. The one constraint is the 2-way peg. If blockchain A transfers 10 BTC to blockchain B, then regardless of whatever happens on blockchain B, blockchain B can only reclaim 10 BTC on the main blockchain A.

I'd imagine most sidechains would start at a their own block 1, and operate from there. They may have coinbases in found blocks or may not. They may use sha256 or something (anything) else for POW. They may use ECDSA, or something (anything) else. If they try something that fails and is hacked, it only effects people who transferred value to that sidechain as the sidechain can only reclaim the original value transferred to it. If they have coinbases it does not change the fact that they can only reclaim the original BTC that were sent.

I'd imagine most sidechains will have no coinbase on use the same crypto as Bitcoin so transaction fees alone would attract miners to MM and thus benefit from Bitcoin's hashrate.

There could also be centralized sidechains that trust a single entity. (i.e. a paypal coin) Here no real mining needs to happen because the centralized entity would maintain the block order.

In all these cases though the concept of a single 21M BTC ledger is preserved through the 2-way pegging system. This maintains the economics of Bitcoin and it's role as sound money. Bitcoin is the parent chain and all sidechains are children chains dependent on the Bitcoin genesis chain, the total value of all will only total 21M BTC at any given time.

The thing to remember is Bitcoin is the root of the system, within a world of many sidechains Bitcoin is still the genesis chain, there is still only one ledger due to the 2-way peg. If anything starts to screw up Bitcoin (such as miners exiting due to no fees) it effects all and the community would work to fix that. March 2013 showed how focused everyone is in the face of existential threats.

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.

[rocks]

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.

No, I've mostly been looking at the concept and playing with that. What I've seen at the concept level I like.

For now, I've assumed the math behind the two-way pegging system is sound. This is something I need to understand better before completely buying into the concept. Hopefully over the coming months there will be better layman descriptions of the two-way pegging system and from there can dive in the details more. This was the process I used when learning ECDSA originally. It's entirely possible once I understand the pegging system better I'll hate the idea, but for now am looking at the concept assuming the peg works as advertised.

If anyone understand the math behind the peg, please share. I think everyone could use that.

[cypherdoc]

did you understand the math?  being an SPV proof, the probabilities for attack seemed to be somewhat less strong than that of std POW.  also something about headers and summary hashes:

While the hash value itself does not
change the amount of work a block is counted as, the presence of lower-than-necessary hashes is in
fact statistical evidence of more work done in the chain[Mil12]. We can exploit this fact to prove
equal amounts of work with only a few block headers[Fri14]. It should therefore be possible to
greatly compress a list of headers while still proving the same amount of work. We refer to such a
compressed list as a
compact SPV proof
or
compressed DMMS
.

No, I've mostly been looking at the concept and playing with that. What I've seen at the concept level I like.

For now, I've assumed the math behind the two-way pegging system is sound. This is something I need to understand better before completely buying into the concept. Hopefully over the coming months there will be better layman descriptions of the two-way pegging system and from there can dive in the details more. This was the process I used when learning ECDSA originally. It's entirely possible once I understand the pegging system better I'll hate the idea, but for now am looking at the concept assuming the peg works as advertised.

If anyone understand the math behind the peg, please share. I think everyone could use that.

changing the script op codes to accommodate these proofs while embedding additional data into blocks changes things quite a bit in terms of complexity to the Bitcoin protocol it appears.  one can claim that it is only a change in the script but when you realize all routine BTC tx's occur within script, it doesn't seem so trivial of a change.

the 2wp is also not so seamless when you consider it takes at least a full 2d to get thru these contest/confimration periods.

[Dusty]

in the meantime, silver is being destroyed.  need i say more on this topic?

Is this a direct consequence?

Breaking! US MINT SUSPENDS SILVER EAGLES

Please excuse me for having posted back on topic 

[NewLiberty]

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.  
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.

instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its pretty exhausting because it is difficult to determine what you are trying to communicate.
This post in particular is merely self contradictory rhetoric.  It doesn't contain any reasoned arguments.
Parse it yourself and you will see...

Either (a) side chains have no capability to "mess with" Bitcoin, or (b) they are empowered to improve, ensure preservation, and adaptability...  

Then, you claim to know the purpose of side chains.  As if there is only one purpose that *the people* that create side chains can have.  This is an outlandishly impossible claim to make.

Followed by another self contradiction.  Either (a) side chains do not change the incentive structure, or (b) they improve it.  Both of these can not be true.


I think you should just stop advocating for side chains.  You are a bad spokesperson for the cause.  People will read these posts of yours and get the idea that someone is hyping SC for some nefarious purpose, because these posts of yours just don't make sense, and not even internally consistent with itself.  

[Odalv]

who here has gone thru the math in Appendix B on SPV proofs?  is it sound and how does a compact SPV proof work in practical terms?

also, what is the structure of a SC?  does it start at the same block height (328739) as Bitcoin on day 1 with a complete history going back to the genesis block or does it start at it's own Block 1 w/o a coinbase?

i assume the crypto would be the same?  ECDSA and sha256, ripemd160?

New SC starts when peg is created (bitcoins are locked). All credibility for SC is in MC.
It does not matters what crypto will SC use. (it can use any cypto)

example:
SC can create paper coupons, this coupons is backed by bitcoin. (no new coupons can be created, only by depositing more bitcoins)
 - there is not digital ledger in couponSC
 - transaction are doing exchanging coupon by hand
 - somebody is doing 2wp exchanging coupons for BTC
 - no changes to existing bitcoin protocol is needed.

Some people in africa may find this useful. There is no way paper coupons can affect your bitcoins.
Only users of paper coupons take risk if they exchange this coupons for BTC they already owned and locked in MC.

Again "It does not matters what crypto will SC use. "