Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

We agree again!

The 2wp creates an offramp to any one of a #of speculative assets (by that I mean anything not BTC or scBTC). The 2wp allows this transformation to occur according to the rules of the SC dev. This breaks the Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain.

The more SC's created and used in this way, the more USD's Blockstream will make.

Blockstream does not distribute license for creation of sidechains. Blockstream will be responsible for a minority of the sidechains that will be created : open source

Case in point : Truthcoin.

Offramp exist right now through the federated peg. Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain is therefore DOA.

Sold your Bitcoins yet?

[1713571099]

1713571099

[1713571099]

1713571099

[1713571099]

1713571099

[1713571099]

1713571099

[1713571099]

1713571099

[1713571099]

1713571099

[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?

Here are some of my thoughts on the pros pulled up from a previous post. Maybe someone can provide some summary of reasonable cons that are well argued and based on facts and not speculation. I know there certainly was a couple of these throughout the discussion

Sidechains enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect.

Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.

....

SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.

It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.

The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization

Awesome reply thanks,
I see the fundamental need for Bitcoin is the store of value, we also have many other crypto coins for other interesting functions, is this the potential source of disruption referred too?

Why do you feel miners need more incentives? Isn't that like central bank feeling like it's good to incentivize parts of the economy?

It also occurs to me that you want Bitcoin to compete with other cryptocurrencies, why can't we use other products for speed and utility?

[cypherdoc]

We agree again!

The 2wp creates an offramp to any one of a #of speculative assets (by that I mean anything not BTC or scBTC). The 2wp allows this transformation to occur according to the rules of the SC dev. This breaks the Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain.

The more SC's created and used in this way, the more USD's Blockstream will make.

Blockstream does not distribute license for creation of sidechains. Blockstream will be responsible for a minority of the sidechains that will be created : open source

if profits aren't important for them, re-organize as a non-profit.

Case in point : Truthcoin.

agree.  Truthcoin is a great example of all the SC's that will be created that will cause confusion in the market place as to where to put your money:  BTC or TC?

Offramp exist right now through the federated peg. Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain is therefore DOA.

Bullshit.  no source code change has occurred therefore no systemic risk, unlike with SPVproof.

Sold your Bitcoins yet?

troll

[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?

Probably because some people became invested (financially and/or emotionally) in various strategies which were predicated on certain expectations of how Bitcoin would overcome it's rather obvious weaknesses and did not anticipate sidechains as being one of them.

In this respect sidechains are every bit as much of a 'disruptive technology' to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to the mainstream debt-based monetary system.  Naturally some people will lose, but they won't be going down without a fight.

Thanks for your reply. I'm not convinced Bitcoin is all that disruptive, the problem I see in fiat, is governments are creating more than relative GDP. To that existent Bitcoin can be a store of value to offset the overprinting.

So I'm not seeing the potential disruption to Bitcoin. As a small holder of Bitcoin having survived one bear market, how do Side Chains disrupt Bitcoin and what does this mean for it's function as a store of value?

If you don't see the disruption in Bitcoin I would suggest you concentrate on this before engaging sidechains.

Here is an excellent post from Peter R here about the importance of money as a ledger and why Bitcoin is the best ledger technology available to us :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9247581#msg9247581

Thanks for the link I see the potential, it would seem Side Chains are like other ledgers that are linked to the Bitcoin ledger. I see how they could be a threat, if they grow in value it would detract from the primary ledger of value, possibly competing with it.

[brg444]

I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.

this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee.  don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients.  they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value.  this is a problem.  especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream.

if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC.  will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins?  do you even want that?

Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System.  And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC).

Your repeating the same delusional paranoia is not going to make it any more real.

Blockstream, I imagine, can be very selective in choosing their client as it as been mentioned they already have a gang of top level corporate clients lined up.

Furthermore, it is not Blockstream's job to generate adoption for their clients' SC. If their client are willing to pay what I imagine is a pretty hefty fee for their service, then I imagine that they expect their sidechain idea to serve some utility or application that fulfills a demand or a need in the market. For these sidechains to succeed, unlike your delusional self would believe, they do not have to "siphon" as many BTC as possible. The goal here is to create a service/an application that uses the BTC currency as its unit of account not to compete with the BTC currency. Blockstream, I'm sure, is not in the business of creating "speculative" sidechains, this job will be left to scammy developers like Truthcoin.

[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?

Probably because some people became invested (financially and/or emotionally) in various strategies which were predicated on certain expectations of how Bitcoin would overcome it's rather obvious weaknesses and did not anticipate sidechains as being one of them.

In this respect sidechains are every bit as much of a 'disruptive technology' to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to the mainstream debt-based monetary system.  Naturally some people will lose, but they won't be going down without a fight.

Thanks for your reply. I'm not convinced Bitcoin is all that disruptive, the problem I see in fiat, is governments are creating more than relative GDP. To that existent Bitcoin can be a store of value to offset the overprinting.

So I'm not seeing the potential disruption to Bitcoin. As a small holder of Bitcoin having survived one bear market, how do Side Chains disrupt Bitcoin and what does this mean for it's function as a store of value?

I just mean that if one had been planning their activities based on the assumption that Bitcoin would balloon and centralize to a smaller number of favored infrastructure providers (as one example) then sidechains could be considered highly disruptive to plans built around that expectation.

One (of many) business opportunities was the construction of a tainting authority.  It could not work in a free ecosystem and also could not work without a government mandate which would force customers (e.g., TigerDirect) onto the entity's client list.

I've outlined before how tainting could be bootstrapped without any changes to Bitcoin's protocol and with a small fraction of vendors being on-board and under modern law they could easily be made to have no choice.  In a nutshell, I will devalue a tainted BTC you wish to give me even if I don't agree with tainting and have no expectation of using it at TigerDirect.  The reason I will devalue it is that I myself have to get rid of it at some point.

Anyway, sidechains can make tainting vastly more difficult because of the natural mixing and distribution effects which happen within the chains.  And they can pop up in whack-a-mole fasion if attacked.  Even if tainting impacts sidechains via the peg, I will tend to devalue sidechain currency less because there is a strong possibility that I will do much of my activity completely within the chain.

Thanks

[tvbcof]

I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.

this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee.  don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients.  they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value.  this is a problem.  especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream.

Dude, you know as well as I that if the parties worked on sidechains under a non-profit of some sort you would be screaming bloody murder that there was something wrong with that and they cannot be successful without Adam Smith's invisible hand.  Your arguments are so transparent and silly that I don't think you are probably fooling even total newbs.

if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC.  will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins?  do you even want that?

Actually, there are a multitude of failure modes which could impact Bitcoin.  Sidechains helps a bunch on a variety of fronts, but it is no guarantee that Bitcoin will not be subverted.  Should Bitcoin fall, I do see a possibility that some of the sidechains will switch to a credible and defensible backing store although I expect that everyone hopes that doesn't happen.  It would be a giant hassle.  I expect that the core Bitcoin devs, and in particular the highly credible ones associated with Blockstream, will do everything they can protect Bitcoin against such an eventuality, but if Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation manages to insert unsound system growth there may not be much that anyone can do to recover Bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System.  And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC).

Sidechains will be absolutely part of the 'self-contained financial system'.  An integral part.  Sidecoins ARE Bitcoin.  It has no impact on the 'inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain(MC)' which is kind of a 'no duh' statement with no meaning.

[Peter R]

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too. 

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

[cypherdoc]

I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.

this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee.  don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients.  they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value.  this is a problem.  especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream.

if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC.  will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins?  do you even want that?

Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System.  And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC).

Your repeating the same delusional paranoia is not going to make it any more real.

Blockstream, I imagine, can be very selective in choosing their client as it as been mentioned they already have a gang of top level corporate clients lined up.

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

Furthermore, it is not Blockstream's job to generate adoption for their clients' SC. If their client are willing to pay what I imagine is a pretty hefty fee for their service, then I imagine that they expect their sidechain idea to serve some utility or application that fulfills a demand or a need in the market. For these sidechains to succeed, unlike your delusional self would believe, they do not have to "siphon" as many BTC as possible.

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

The goal here is to create a service/an application that uses the BTC currency as its unit of account not to compete with the BTC currency. Blockstream, I'm sure, is not in the business of creating "speculative" sidechains, this job will be left to scammy developers like Truthcoin.

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

[cypherdoc]

The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol

thanks for entering the discussion Peter.  btw, i agree with all you've said, especially THIS.

[brg444]

if profits aren't important for them, re-organize as a non-profit.

They're for profit, the point is they don't have monopoly, or even dominance over the creation of sidechain. I know your small fry brain is unable to process the fact that sidechains are a public good available to all but that is very much a reality. It is open source code and you can expect thousands of developers all over the world tinkering with this technology and creating sidechains. Some will be useful, others will be speculative, a few will gain significant adoption.

There will be Blockstream2, Blockstream3. Hell, you can expect IBM, Redhat to get in the game and offer the same services. Blockstream at one point will be just another company offering decentralized platform consulting services. One with very competent developers of course which we should expect will succeed but no more.

This is such a beautiful prospect for the value of the Bitcoin ecosystem it is a tragedy you are so narrow minded you cannot see it.

agree.  Truthcoin is a great example of all the SC's that will be created that will cause confusion in the market place as to where to put your money:  BTC or TC?

Yeah right   Put your money on the proven, secure and highly liquid store of value chain or on the piece of crap speculative chain that is less secure, less liquid and infinitely more risky. So confusing!

My point btw was that Blockstream is not making one penny from the creation of Truthcoin SC.

Bullshit.  no source code change has occurred therefore no systemic risk, unlike with SPVproof.

Systemic risk? The risk is already absolutely systemic.

Federated peg schemes are a reality. It is only a matter of time before a bunch of them pop up and gain some sort adoption at which point your sacred "inextricable" link WILL be broken.

Sold your Bitcoins yet?

[tim2020]

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

Thank Peter, I've got a much better understanding of the politics involved. This solidifies my understanding of the argument that it's * not * an insignificant change.

* edit *

[brg444]

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

I see where you are coming from but my opinion, as stated previously, is that integration of sidechains within the protocol is an important "upgrade" for the sake of decentralization and the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger in the future.

Moreover, it seems to me colored coins and counterparty are a lesser technology compared to sidechains which I find to be a very intuitive and natural progression of the Bitcoin protocol. Sidechains on the protocol level makes it possible to create counterparty/coloredcoins schemes that work in better synergy with the Bitcoin protocol. It also enables any other application layer that smart developers can think of.

Through sidechains, this is now all possible without being dependent on these federated servers which are inherently more centralized and create a very real risk of inflation and other malicious acts.

TL;DR : SPVproof Sidechain allows for decentralization of applications built on top of the Bitcoin protocol. IMO, this aspect is a very natural and important progress for anyone who dreams of a decentralized, trustless future.

To answer your question : yes I believe the increase of block size is an inevitability although what model should be adopted remains up in the air and is frankly out of my expertise. I do believe though that sidechains are a new factor that should be considered when making these decisions.

[brg444]

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

[cypherdoc]

You know what the inflationists will promise you right?

Everything.

[STT]

They can promise you everything because they can pay all bills in theory.    When the reality arrives its the end of a fairy tale and it does not end well, the reality of borrowing large amounts to spend now is the bill later is far greater.   Eventually collapse is the only possible conclusion especially if taxes are raised and productive business outside government fails or leaves.  Either the debt collapses into default or possibly even the country as assets are seized and other extreme measures, theres many examples of this.  The majority of what backs dollars now is the debt held and traded as an asset, I cant see how they would reverse that sensibly

   The big thing now is that dollar has a 2nd home in every country of the world, any possible framework to support and replace that dollar when it goes missing could be vital

[NewLiberty]

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

[NewLiberty]

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

Thank Peter, I've got a much better understanding of the politics involved. This solidifies my understanding of the argument that it's * not * an insignificant change.

* edit *

Correct it is a freaking huge change of monumental proportions.
Its a high-risk high-reward gambit that expands the potential in all sorts of currently unforeseen ways..
It really can't be implemented without the change,
Well... some special cases things can be done, (with the federation/oracles) but the vast capabilities of validating arbitrary code on (and with) the Bitcoin block chain is what takes the fork.

[brg444]

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

Interesting application but I honestly don't see the point you are trying to make...or at least how it applies to my comment about free market decision.

So sidechains can succeed at doing what exactly if they generate no free market demand?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but if no user participate in this scheme how exactly does it "succeed"?

[brg444]

Correct it is a freaking huge change of monumental proportions.
Its a high-risk high-reward gambit that expands the potential in all sorts of currently unforeseen ways..
It really can't be implemented without the change,
Well... some special cases things can be done, (with the federation/oracles) but the vast capabilities of validating arbitrary code on (and with) the Bitcoin block chain is what takes the fork.

It'd be interesting if you could expand on that.

My understanding is any sidechain scheme can be implemented by replacing SPVproof with federation/oracles. It was even suggested by the developers that this would be the first step of the implementation for most sidechains (bootstrapping on a federated peg model) then implemented through OP_SPV.

Is this not the case?