Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

Lol'ed at your tl;dr

Let's assume the 20 page maths proof proves it can be done. Now is it a good idea to change the Bitcoin protocol to make this happen, what are the risks if any.

I see a few long-term outcomes:
First is Bitcoin is largely safe so long as there is a high block reward.
Competition for transaction fees on other chains  will come at the cost of security leaving the higher cost networks vulnerable to attack.
Unless we see growth outside the Bitcoin network, this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin. (Also environmental impact of mining could be an issue if a dogecoin type scenario attracts BTC.)

The above assumes that SC don't have a corruption failure where BTC becomes "decapitated", or or malfeasance where Bitcoin takes the blame for a protocol error instead of say an entity like MtGox.

Other than the above SC all good.

I had to go back to the paper to assess the volume offline math, and I find far less than 20 pages of math. To be honest, I find the paper to describe history, some vision, using bad terms, bad economics. Basically, it could be written by the tailors in the story about the low confidence emperor and his new habit. What I found somewhat useful, is the idea of the atomic swap. You might think I am arrogant by saying this, but according to my mom I am quite bright, and I could easily understand the brilliance of the bitcoin whitepaper, but not this.

FWIW my Mom also thought I was quite bright. Looking at Odalv post I assume it's possible, I was just reviewing some of the macro economic risks, and trying to understand if SC are a good idea or not, on a technical level it's a notable achievement. In reality I'd rather see some other trust free multisig solutions to the problems SC solve.

To sprinkle some salt in the wounds (since I have not yet been counter-attacked   ), it reminds me of the early days of computing, where folks thought that anything was possible (we just need to have the data in machine readable form, then we can do magic). The system lacks fundamentals, words are badly defined, imagination is unrestricted... to the moon. It is the general problem solver once again http://ai-su13.artifice.cc/gps.html.

Really, a more specific system has to be described, before it is possible to consider the viability of it. An please, inventors, cut the crap, write about the essence.

 

[1714146621]

1714146621

[1714146621]

1714146621

[1714146621]

1714146621

[1714146621]

1714146621

[1714146621]

1714146621

[Adrian-x]

We can add a little more complexity.  Maybe this will help...

 MC
 |   \
SC₁ SC₃
 |   /
SC₂

There is not force that can take SC1 pKey and SC3 pKey and move scBTC into SC2.
Only owners of SC1+SC3 pKeys can transfer into SC2.

I'm a little unclear as to what happens if 60% of SC1+ 60%SC3 pKeys transfer into SC2. Then SC1 has a catastrophic failure.
Can SC3 be used to recover SC1 (pegged BTC)?

- all keys form SC1 are lost
- new owners of SC2 pkeys (60 % of SC3 volume) can return into SC3 -> it depends on SC2 rules -> whitepaper describes all possibilities.
 

Thanks, so if I understand you correctly one possibility is SC2 is still viable with all keys but only any 60% of SC3 keys from SC2 would be convertible back ultimately to BTC.

[molecular]

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

I have a question, too. It's not necessarily directed at cypher. It's an honest question and I assume its already answered in this thread.

Are you saying there's the danger of indirectly inflating the bitcoin monetary base through the application of 2-way-pegged sidechains and if so, can you point out the flaw in the following analogy:

The grownups have a party. It's all about a cake. A quarter of the precious cake is cut off and given to the little ones to play with. They make small cakes from the material, some in form of little kittens. They also throw it around a lot and maybe lose parts of it under the sofa or to the cat. They also mix part of the original stuff with more flower and eggs they find in the kitchen, also some frog shit.

Some of the kids decide they want to be part of "the big cake party" again and request re-integration of their little cake into the big one. The grownups look at the piece of cake offered and decide wether it consist purely of "the original stuff". If so the piece is reintegrated and the little one gets to be part of the real party again. If additional ingredients are detected, the piece is rejected or only partly accepted. Hence the grownup cake isn't being inflated.

Some of the kids lost all their little cakes and are shut out from the grownup party, because they have nothing valid to buy themselves back in. Some other kids managed to accumulate more than their original share of cake and managed to keep it uncontiminated. They play a bigger role in the grownup party now.

In the end there's less grownup cake, because some ended up in the cats stomach and a lot got contaminated. The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more. Some of the grownups also lost cake to the cat and some lost it to their own stomachs, but that's another story.

So... stupid analogy? What am I missing?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

I have a question, too. It's not necessarily directed at cypher. It's an honest question and I assume its already answered in this thread.

Are you saying there's the danger of indirectly inflating the bitcoin monetary base through the application of 2-way-pegged sidechains and if so, can you point out the flaw in the following analogy:

The grownups have a party. It's all about a cake. A quarter of the precious cake is cut off and given to the little ones to play with. They make small cakes from the material, some in form of little kittens. They also throw it around a lot and maybe lose parts of it under the sofa or to the cat. They also mix part of the original stuff with more flower and eggs they find in the kitchen, also some frog shit.

Some of the kids decide they want to be part of "the big cake party" again and request re-integration of their little cake into the big one. The grownups look at the piece of cake offered and decide wether it consist purely of "the original stuff". If so the piece is reintegrated and the little one gets to be part of the real party again. If additional ingredients are detected, the piece is rejected or only partly accepted. Hence the grownup cake isn't being inflated.

Some of the kids lost all their little cakes and are shut out from the grownup party, because they have nothing valid to buy themselves back in. Some other kids managed to accumulate more than their original share of cake and managed to keep it uncontiminated. They play a bigger role in the grownup party now.

In the end there's less grownup cake, because some ended up in the cats stomach and a lot got contaminated. The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more. Some of the grownups also lost cake to the cat and some lost it to their own stomachs, but that's another story.

So... stupid analogy? What am I missing?

Good analogy

[molecular]

Anyway, when the bitcoin address is created, the unlocking code (the secret key) has to be created by a single machine with a single owner before it is hidden or split and distributed. So the question is: Is it possible to do this and at the same time prove that the original unlocking code (the secret key) is not known by anyone? Is it possible to prove that a secret exists, and that secret can be revealed, but the secret is not known by anyone?

I'm not a crypto expert, but I think this can be done and no: the private key doesn't need to be constructed on a single machine. I think its possible to generate n public/private key pairs pub_i/priv_i (i 1..n) and then use some operation on the public keys to produce pub_aggragated the matching private key of which (priv_aggregated) can in the future be constructed exactly if all individual priv_i keys are known.

[molecular]

Lol'ed at your tl;dr

Let's assume the 20 page maths proof proves it can be done. Now is it a good idea to change the Bitcoin protocol to make this happen, what are the risks if any.

I see a few long-term outcomes:
First is Bitcoin is largely safe so long as there is a high block reward.
Competition for transaction fees on other chains  will come at the cost of security leaving the higher cost networks vulnerable to attack.
Unless we see growth outside the Bitcoin network, this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin. (Also environmental impact of mining could be an issue if a dogecoin type scenario attracts BTC.)

The above assumes that SC don't have a corruption failure where BTC becomes "decapitated", or or malfeasance where Bitcoin takes the blame for a protocol error instead of say an entity like MtGox.

Other than the above SC all good.

I think this might be an answer to my previous question, but I don't understand the part "this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin". Are you saying because the SC draws mining power away from the main chain, this is also sucking value from the mainchain tokens?

[Adrian-x]

Lol'ed at your tl;dr

Let's assume the 20 page maths proof proves it can be done. Now is it a good idea to change the Bitcoin protocol to make this happen, what are the risks if any.

I see a few long-term outcomes:
First is Bitcoin is largely safe so long as there is a high block reward.
Competition for transaction fees on other chains  will come at the cost of security leaving the higher cost networks vulnerable to attack.
Unless we see growth outside the Bitcoin network, this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin. (Also environmental impact of mining could be an issue if a dogecoin type scenario attracts BTC.)

The above assumes that SC don't have a corruption failure where BTC becomes "decapitated", or or malfeasance where Bitcoin takes the blame for a protocol error instead of say an entity like MtGox.

Other than the above SC all good.

I had to go back to the paper to assess the volume offline math, and I find far less than 20 pages of math. To be honest, I find the paper to describe history, some vision, using bad terms, bad economics. Basically, it could be written by the tailors in the story about the low confidence emperor and his new habit. What I found somewhat useful, is the idea of the atomic swap. You might think I am arrogant by saying this, but according to my mom I am quite bright, and I could easily understand the brilliance of the bitcoin whitepaper, but not this.

FWIW my Mom also thought I was quite bright. Looking at Odalv post I assume it's possible, I was just reviewing some of the macro economic risks, and trying to understand if SC are a good idea or not, on a technical level it's a notable achievement. In reality I'd rather see some other trust free multisig solutions to the problems SC solve.

To sprinkle some salt in the wounds (since I have not yet been counter-attacked  ), it reminds me of the early days of computing, where folks thought that anything was possible (we just need to have the data in machine readable form, then we can do magic). The system lacks fundamentals, words are badly defined, imagination is unrestricted... to the moon. It is the general problem solver once again http://ai-su13.artifice.cc/gps.html.

Really, a more specific system has to be described, before it is possible to consider the viability of it. An please, inventors, cut the crap write about the essence.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding you or we even have opposing views, as far as the essence of the code is conserved I'm not experienced enough to evaluate it, but rather I'd like to asses what are likely outcomes if it's implemented, of concern would be the unfavorable ones. Non the less yes this looks like Pandora's box, and lacking the context for your GPS reference, I'd say to a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and programmers are going to program, and investor...

Still there are many nefarious SC scams that could be used to garner trust or adoption, obviously theses are in my view infinite but if one understand the essence one may be able to avoid them, I just what to know where that leaves me.

[molecular]

half-jokingly: oh! I think I got why cypher and other seem to be opposed to sidechains: they can be viewed a bit like rehypthecation of assets, like paper gold!

[Peter R]

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

I have a question, too. It's not necessarily directed at cypher. It's an honest question and I assume its already answered in this thread.

Are you saying there's the danger of indirectly inflating the bitcoin monetary base through the application of 2-way-pegged sidechains and if so, can you point out the flaw in the following analogy:

The grownups have a party. It's all about a cake. A quarter of the precious cake is cut off and given to the little ones to play with. They make small cakes from the material, some in form of little kittens. They also throw it around a lot and maybe lose parts of it under the sofa or to the cat. They also mix part of the original stuff with more flower and eggs they find in the kitchen, also some frog shit.

Some of the kids decide they want to be part of "the big cake party" again and request re-integration of their little cake into the big one. The grownups look at the piece of cake offered and decide wether it consist purely of "the original stuff". If so the piece is reintegrated and the little one gets to be part of the real party again. If additional ingredients are detected, the piece is rejected or only partly accepted. Hence the grownup cake isn't being inflated.

Some of the kids lost all their little cakes and are shut out from the grownup party, because they have nothing valid to buy themselves back in. Some other kids managed to accumulate more than their original share of cake and managed to keep it uncontiminated. They play a bigger role in the grownup party now.i
In the end there's less grownup cake, because some ended up in the cats stomach and a lot got contaminated. The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more. Some of the grownups also lost cake to the cat and some lost it to their own stomachs, but that's another story.

So... stupid analogy? What am I missing?

Entertaining  

I think one thing that Cypher is worried about is that your cake party turns out to be unchaperoned.  Several of the grownups see the little ones having so much fun making a creative mess with their cake that they all join in.  Next thing you know it's a food fight, the cake ends up splattered on faces and across walls, that cat gets sick, and the few adults who kept their pieces pristine lose out because everyone else stumbles home never wanting cake again.  



My hunch is that the people controlling the largest pieces of cake won't be taking any chances.  

[Adrian-x]

I think this might be an answer to my previous question, but I don't understand the part "this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin". Are you saying because the SC draws mining power away from the main chain, this is also sucking value from the mainchain tokens?

Somewhat, if value is created on a SC that is greater than that of Bitcoin the Bitcoin stays there. SC would be unlucky to draw mining power away from Bitcoin while block rewards are high and it's the dominant chain. One could script mine SC-tokens I'm sure there will be PoS versions too. (Maybe a script miner who gets fees from a script SC is content building his mining farm and not supporting the Bitcoin network in that way he's investing in the SC security and not Bitcoin security in a small way he'd be drawing mining power away from the Bitcoin network)

What I'm saying is SC will be designed to be more efficient, and will need to attract users and and miners. First users want cheaper transaction, then miners want profit for security. So whoever gets the best mix grows.

In the Bitcoin incentive structure the industrial energy used to hash grows with the value of BTC, over time this is reduced to the marginal cost of protecting the network, it will fall into equilibrium with the increase and decrease in BTC value. That changes with SC.

Decentralized SC that function as a means of exchange and use merged mining will probably offer the most security miners will mine all viable ones and the difficulty will be in close equilibrium with Bitcoin. They can be thought off as secure as Bitcoin.

The SC with the lowest cost and biggest network will grow reducing the need for other Decentralized SC's, the result is Decentralized SC will either compete on fees as they are as secure as Bitcoin, or they'll compete on utility and charge a premium.  The users will go wherever it's most cost effective to exchange value, on the SC an increase in value is reflected in the price of Bitcoin, however that increase in value is attributed to being the biggest network with the lower fees, this increase in BTC value won't be reflected in mining revenue because it comes at the expense of sacrificing profits, leaving the network less secure.

The SC that offer additional utility at a premium or greatest arbitrage will alow miners to grow and secure the network, that hashing power is distributed over the whole network, those coins that earn the most for miners, when this type of growth happens will incentivized to mine those SC, they will drive new investment in mining and become more secure. In this case this network will be growing and Bitcoin and other SC will be getting the benefits of added security. This growth is inflationary taking value out of Bitcoin, the market locks it in. I'd only consider the growth inflationary because that is value on top of Bitcoin in that scenario Bitcoin is dragged up but it's not the source of the growth.

If either scenario gets a stronghold you can expect the incentive to become exaggerated, neither is good for Bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin Collapsing, SideChains and Gold Up ... amIrite?

[cypherdoc]

 not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds? 

[keystroke]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds? 

Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market.

[cypherdoc]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market.

Thank you for making my point! You are  exactly what I was  looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin!  And they said it won't happen  

Answer:  it might not be a scam!  But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according  to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition .

[keystroke]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market.

Thank you for making my point! You are  exactly what I was  looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin!  And they said it won't happen  

Answer:  it might not be a scam!  But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according  to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining.

I'm glad I could help! But I don't think Truthcoin has to operate as a sidechain.

I missed the link but will look through your post history to find it. We certainly don't want any inflation in BTC. But I don't think any other digital currency really has a chance (perhaps an anonymous one).

[cypherdoc]

Here is the MM  link
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288/3125
K

[cypherdoc]

not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?  

Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market.

Thank you for making my point! You are  exactly what I was  looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin!  And they said it won't happen  

Answer:  it might not be a scam!  But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according  to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining.

I'm glad I could help! But I don't think Truthcoin has to operate as a sidechain.

I missed the link but will look through your post history to find it. We certainly don't want any inflation in BTC. But I don't think any other digital currency really has a chance (perhaps an anonymous one).

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that guy thinks Truthcoin needs to be marketed as a SC. And why not? He can logarithmically increase the level of his advertising claims. All altcoin devs are jumping for joy right now as they can't believe their good fortune that there main competition is going to let them directly into the house next to its core engine business model.

[keystroke]

Here is the MM  link
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288/3125
K

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

[cypherdoc]

Here is the MM  link
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288/3125
K

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

[keystroke]

Here is the MM  link
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/1288/3125
K

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

But not long term greed if it would destroy btc. Also mm leave a coin open to attack like when Luke Jr. killed Coiledcoin. So the coin could be killed in the early days due to a 51%.