Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

LOL, of course the notion of 2wp and the cryptography used to accomplish it are different things.  That is however orthagonal to the point that the cryptography used to accomplish it does matter, it matters quite a bit.

Here are some simple ways that it matters, there are many others.
1) It is either compatible with the ASICs used for MC mining, or not (this matters for merge mining potential).
2) It is either using a key escrow or not (this would allow the initiator of the side chain to seize any of the side chain that doesn't comply with its rules - like the govSC discussed earlier).
3) It is either a well established cryptographc algorithm or not.
4) The algorithm uses cryptographic primitives which are either compromised or not.
5) The algorithm is either conducive to a PoW structure, or not.

If what you mean by "it doesn't matter what crypto SC will use" is that SC can use any crypto, good bad or ugly, then we agree.  I would just suggest that it does matter whether the crypto is good bad or ugly.

This is so obvious to anyone reading this thread I'm not sure why it deserves to be mentioned.

Did you somehow think it escaped us that some SC could be used for nefarious purposes? That we believe ALL SC should be trusted?

This is possibly the rudest "I agree with you" statement I've seen in a while, but thank you. 

Yes, I was concerned it had escaped you. 
Pretty much the content of most of your posts in this thread led to the conclusion that you are ignoring some very important details.   When I see someone blindly advocating, it makes me curious just how blind they are.  Especially when there are explicit statements saying things like "it doesn't matter what crypto is used" (which you didn't write, but the person to whom that response was written did).

[1714981746]

1714981746

[cypherdoc]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it?

yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.

Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them.

With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying.

that's hyperbole to expect 100%.  that's b/c there still is a % solo mining that won't have a clue nor the resources to facilitate such MM.  even at the pool level, i wouldn't expect 100%.

[brg444]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it?

yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.

Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them.

With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying.

that's hyperbole to expect 100%.  that's b/c there still is a % solo mining that won't have a clue nor the resources to facilitate such MM.  even at the pool level, i wouldn't expect 100%.

It is unfortunate but these entities (solo miners) are soon going to disappear from the ecosystem. We're entering the big leagues now and the professional want to eat all of the pie.

[cypherdoc]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

[cypherdoc]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it?

yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.

Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them.

With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying.

that's hyperbole to expect 100%.  that's b/c there still is a % solo mining that won't have a clue nor the resources to facilitate such MM.  even at the pool level, i wouldn't expect 100%.

It is unfortunate but these entities (solo miners) are soon going to disappear from the ecosystem. We're entering the big leagues now and the professional want to it all of the pie.

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

[cypherdoc]

my gaud, that's ugly.  sniff, sniff:

[brg444]

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

Agreed, but the pool administrators are going to want to use their users' hashing power the most efficiently possible so as to guarantee the best possible ROI. That will be done by MM any chains where there is value

[Odalv]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

[bucktotal]

hey cypher, seen you reference nmc MM @70% a few times...

for reference, its hash rate is more in the 50's % usually

http://blockchained.com/namecoin/

[cypherdoc]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.

[cypherdoc]

hey cypher, seen you reference nmc MM @70% a few times...

for reference, its hash rate is more in the 50's % usually

http://blockchained.com/namecoin/

thx!

[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.

"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

[NewLiberty]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it?

yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.

Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them.

With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying.

I would expect some-but-not-all would be MM'd.
There may easily be side chains that are not profitable to MM, and some that can't be MM'd with MC, but like you I would expect any SC miner that can MM with MC would do so (and continue mining Bitcoin).

[Odalv]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.

So did we(SC proponents) changed your mind about SC ?
Or do you still believe it is "Blockstream scam" ?

Will you support 2wp by bitcoin protocol ?

[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 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.

"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

There is one Bitcoin ledger.  There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint  >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  
I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.

[cypherdoc]

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.

So did we(SC proponents) changed your mind about SC ?
Or do you still believe it is "Blockstream scam" ?

Will you support 2wp by bitcoin protocol ?

why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!

[Odalv]

why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!

If you are not trading BTC then there is not much reason buying now b/c You already bought at better price years ago.

[notme]

....

Then we agree.
Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters.

It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others).  In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided.  The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work.  If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock.  But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers.

Is  it possible for attackers to do this in reverse?

Take someone's cold wallet and lock them into an SPVPROOF on a SC while the true owner is indisposed for some reason? Or is this impossible because they would need the private keys to begin with? 

Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block.

Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction.  The headers prove the transaction was added to a block.  (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).

What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins.  If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.

[tvbcof]

...
TL;DR: Sidechains (if they succeed) force Bitcoin's hand, although decades in the future, in setting an inflation rate determined by the market, in order to tie miner's subsidies more exactly to the primary service they perform: that of securing Bitcoin's store of value. This is because successful sidechains would allow Bitcoin transactions to be disconnected from Bitcoin miners. Bitcoin therefore could not rely on transaction fees for its network security incentives. Sidechains would have made it clear that transaction functionality is not intrinsic to or inseparable from the Bitcoin network; only the store of value function is, and therefore miners must be continually rewarded for maintaining this function alone, for the lifetime the network.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your constructs over the years here, I appreciate that you the potential for and disposition toward thinking.

It does seem to me that Bitcoin infrastructure provisioning is designed such that it will always approach unprofitably no matter what the growth rate, inflation rate, fee structure, etc.

It is worthwhile to note that different classes of entities can accept different levels of profit.  So, an independent enthusiast class individual might be happy to break even and occasionally make a few bucks while this is not an option for a large commercial.  Whatever the case, Bitcoin as implemented simply does not promote the individual class actor very well.

The take-away is that Bitcoin's only realistic hope is for infrastructure providers to monetize some other aspect of Bitcoin's existence.  For large corporate actors this is a no-brainier.  Monetize the intelligence stream as has been a well proven model over the last 15 years.  The big down-side of this is that actors who are able to monetize in this way are distinctly under the thumb of governments, and governments have a very strong propensity to exercise fine-grained control over their citizens.  Governments are inextricably linked to corporations and will be for the foreseeable future.

As I've mentioned before, sidechains would seem to provide a golden opportunity to monetize Bitcoin as a credible source of backing which they require in order to function.  They thus have a significant interest in keeping it that way.

Right now Bitcoin is fairly credible to at least a cross-section of us in the community because it is free of interference (no 'red-listing', transaction discrimination at the mining level, etc.)  Sidechains seem to me like the last best hope of keeping it that way.

[rocks]

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.

"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

There is one Bitcoin ledger.  There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint  >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  
I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.

Let me explain it even more simply then.

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger, that is why the 21M cap holds.

The reason it is a single ledger is because the separate data structures are merged into a single data structure with 2-way pegging.

Congratulations, in 3 years on this board I've never once put someone on ignore because I usually like to hear what others have to say even if I disagree. But you are the first. It was a feat, you should be proud.