Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Odalv]

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.

Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Edit:
 =>  If you fold enough Proteins then you can withdraw this bitcoins :-)

[NewLiberty]

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.

Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.

Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.

With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.  

The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.

Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about.  Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.

Bitcoin is just an experiment right?  We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we?  So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?

[Odalv]

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.

Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.

Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.

With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.  

The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.

Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about.  Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.

Bitcoin is just an experiment right?  We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we?  So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?

scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY

[justusranvier]

Useful proof of work also changes incentives

"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.

If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.

[Odalv]

Useful proof of work also changes incentives

"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.

If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.

We can do contract using OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY.

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.

[NewLiberty]

scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY

Granted, but that is less the issue.
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)

In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.


At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail.  Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering)  It is not a small thing.


So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental.  And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.

[justusranvier]

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.

I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking. Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.

[Odalv]

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.

I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

How do you want replace all money with SC ?

Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.

SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.

Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.

[Odalv]

scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY

Granted, but that is less the issue.
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)

In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.


At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail.  Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering)  It is not a small thing.


So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental.  And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.

Not only on the world of computing.  :-) (finance, gov, ...)

[brg444]

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.

I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

How do you want replace all money with SC ?

Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.

SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.

Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.

he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic)

[cypherdoc]

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.

I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

How do you want replace all money with SC ?

Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.

SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.

Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.

he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic)

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

[Odalv]

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!

[cypherdoc]

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!

You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear.

[Odalv]

You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear.

JR's scenario:

 - how about we replace all money with sidechains!   -> fantasy world
 - Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.  -> alt-coin

It has nothing to do with SC.

[brg444]

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

remember, the inextricable link between BTC and its blockchain is broken, Bitcoin is going to be destroy sooner or later!

[Bagatell]

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

remember, the inextricable link between BTC and its blockchain is broken, Bitcoin is going to be destroy sooner or later!

You're beginning to sound like Shroomskit and Lamchop.

[brg444]

Cmon man, do your job.

 In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!

did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

remember, the inextricable link between BTC and its blockchain is broken, Bitcoin is going to be destroy sooner or later!

You're beginning to sound like Shroomskit and Lamchop.

Funny I thought the same of cypherdoc.

I've been presenting arguments for my case absent of trolling for the past few weeks but it seems cypherdoc does not want to address them or has no answer for them. At this point, I'm just enjoying feeding his paranoia.

I mean, this guy seriously believes that anyone who cares enough to debunk his FUD and misinformation is somehow tied or working for Blockstream. That is some serious case of paranoid dementia.

Looks at this :

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?

Or this

fine.  LET THEM USE FEDERATED SERVERS.  are you deaf?  that won't hurt Bitcoin like the SPVproof.

this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

This gentleman is very, very confused.

[justusranvier]

You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear.

JR's scenario:

 - how about we replace all money with sidechains!   -> fantasy world
 - Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.  -> alt-coin

It has nothing to do with SC.

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

You brought up this idea of using "proof of protein folding" in some kind of convoluted SC scheme,and I was trying to illustrate why, instead inventing new blockchains, it might just be easier and more efficient to just pay people for what you want them to do directly.

You know, just like every other product and service in the economy,

Also, the last bit was a quote from here:

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/appcoins-are-snake-oil/

[tvbcof]

Funny I thought the same of cypherdoc.

I've been presenting arguments for my case absent of trolling for the past few weeks but it seems cypherdoc does not want to address them or has no answer for them. At this point, I'm just enjoying feeding his paranoia.

I mean, this guy seriously believes that anyone who cares enough to debunk his FUD and misinformation is somehow tied or working for Blockstream. That is some serious case of paranoid dementia.

Looks at this :

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?

Or this

fine.  LET THEM USE FEDERATED SERVERS.  are you deaf?  that won't hurt Bitcoin like the SPVproof.

this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

This gentleman is very, very confused.

LOL!

The guy has unleashed a fudslide of biblical proportion on this issue.  He probably thought it would just bury everyone no realizing that if one person took the time to pick through the muck it would do great damage to his strategy.

[tim2020]

This is a popular thread in that it's always at the top. I've been fascinated by Bitcoin for for over a year, and have decided to join bitcointalk.org to get more involved.
I see Side Chains as more interesting than gold and would really appreciate a summary of the pros and cons they have for Bitcoin.

Why is this even a debated topic?