Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?

That depends on how you define "another layer of trust".

Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk.

But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin.

I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network.

In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains.

I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?

Sidechains have two models. They are effectively an alt-chain that is supported by the BTC unit on a 1:1 peg.*

In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.

They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.

*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.

Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point?

[1713965581]

1713965581

[1713965581]

1713965581

[1713965581]

1713965581

[1713965581]

1713965581

[1713965581]

1713965581

[cypherdoc]

Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?

That depends on how you define "another layer of trust".

Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk.

But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin.

I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network.

In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains.

I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?

Sidechains have two models. They are effectively an alt-chain that is supported by the BTC unit on a 1:1 peg.*

In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.

They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.

*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.

Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point?

there is no point if you believe, as i do, that Bitcoin is destined to become a global reserve currency.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?

That depends on how you define "another layer of trust".

Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk.

But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin.

I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network.

In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains.

I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?

Sidechains have two models. They are effectively an alt-chain that is supported by the BTC unit on a 1:1 peg.*

In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.

They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.

*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.

Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point?

there is no point if you believe, as i do, that Bitcoin is destined to become a global reserve currency.

Probably. But Gavin is accepting of the idea, if not somehow working on it. Do we want slick new features? Or something

[cypherdoc]

Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?

That depends on how you define "another layer of trust".

Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk.

But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin.

I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network.

In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains.

I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?

Sidechains have two models. They are effectively an alt-chain that is supported by the BTC unit on a 1:1 peg.*

In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.

They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.

*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.

Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point?

there is no point if you believe, as i do, that Bitcoin is destined to become a global reserve currency.

Probably. But Gavin is accepting of the idea, if not somehow working on it. Do we want slick new features? Or something

of what idea and working on what?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

But sidechains

[cypherdoc]

But sidechains

link?

[brg444]

Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?

That depends on how you define "another layer of trust".

Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk.

But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin.

I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network.

In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains.

I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?

Sidechains have two models. They are effectively an alt-chain that is supported by the BTC unit on a 1:1 peg.*

In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.

They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.

*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.

Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point?

Anonymous sidechain, instant transactions sidechains, decentralized asset registry sidechain, decentralized online copyright and licensing sidechain.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

But sidechains

link?

I'm sorry. Don't tase me bro. I was just asking a question. Do you mean my assumption that the core devs are working to somehow integrate sidechains is mistaken?

[tvbcof]

Will there be a sidechain for micropayments? For example? Are there any proposals?

Damned if I know.

Seriously, yes I'm sure there will.  It is one of the areas of highest interest.  Part of this is because it was one of the early sales pitches of Bitcoin and more than a few 'tards bought it because few people seem to have a real grasp of numbers very much larger than the number of fingers on their hand.

The other thing which Bitcoin is really lacking is real-time behavior such that you could actually drink your coffee before it got cold waiting for your transaction to go through.  The problem is currently solved by giving someone else a bunch of Bitcoin that they will hold for you and they will pay off the vendor (in a manner not at all unlike the modern fiat banking system.)  That will also likely be addressed by some of the earlier sidechains, but in a more healthy way without counter-party risk.  This, of course, preserved Bitcoin as 'Sound Money' which is one of the many reasons I'm very excited about sidechains.

I'd suspect that both micropayments and real-time payments will be implemented in the outer layers by a token system backed by pegged Bitcoin.

[Melbustus]

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?

Due to the potential for such attacks.

That's a hypothesis, and one which is especially promoted by the 'wide open blocksize' crowd.

Satoshi didn't say why he did it in the commit comments as I recall, and I've not heard any credible person say that he explained it to them as it being due to DDoS concerns or anything else.

A perfectly viable hypothesis is that he knew that some other mechanism besides gross opening the blocksize would eventually be required due to scaling issues, and he thought that this setting would give enough headroom for Bitcoin to grow to a decent size before running into problems.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.

Surprised you're evidently not familiar with this quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[tvbcof]

Gavin will get his proposals thru.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/11/everybody-pivots/

Nice try there Slick.  The link says nothing about Gavin's proposal (exponential growth or otherwise.)

The Bitcoin Foundation is a now irrelevant scam initially designed to separate fools and second-level scammers from their money.  They got an amusing number of dopes to the tune of $100k per head.  Of course some of those folks (esp, Kraples) nailed the rest of the community for many times that, but what can you do?

Most people recognize the BF for the gaggle of scammers, govt infiltrators, has-been devs, and pervs that it is.

Actually Murk always seemed like possibly an OK guy to me.  Maybe he could turn the thing around to some degree, but I rather doubt it at this point.

[tvbcof]

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?

Due to the potential for such attacks.

That's a hypothesis, and one which is especially promoted by the 'wide open blocksize' crowd.

Satoshi didn't say why he did it in the commit comments as I recall, and I've not heard any credible person say that he explained it to them as it being due to DDoS concerns or anything else.

A perfectly viable hypothesis is that he knew that some other mechanism besides gross opening the blocksize would eventually be required due to scaling issues, and he thought that this setting would give enough headroom for Bitcoin to grow to a decent size before running into problems.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.

Surprised you're evidently not familiar with this quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

[Melbustus]

if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct?

Due to the potential for such attacks.

That's a hypothesis, and one which is especially promoted by the 'wide open blocksize' crowd.

Satoshi didn't say why he did it in the commit comments as I recall, and I've not heard any credible person say that he explained it to them as it being due to DDoS concerns or anything else.

A perfectly viable hypothesis is that he knew that some other mechanism besides gross opening the blocksize would eventually be required due to scaling issues, and he thought that this setting would give enough headroom for Bitcoin to grow to a decent size before running into problems.

I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes.  Likely we'll never know though.  For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever.  Same diff.  They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another.

Surprised you're evidently not familiar with this quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Looked like a straight-forward, casual discussion to me. And Satoshi was always pretty direct about technical matters.

[solex]

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Thought you might discount such clear evidence.

Theymos had this interpretation:

The main reason for the block size limit is disk space. At 1MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 53GB per year. At 10MB, an attacker can force every generator to permanently store 526GB per year....

Caveden said this:

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.

(my bold emphasis in both quotes)

It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking.

[Melbustus]

Also, can someone who knows CryptoNote tell me if Satoshi basically had the seeds of it here?

I'm not grasping your idea yet.  Does it hide any information from the public network?  What is the advantage?

If at least 50% of nodes validated transactions enough that old transactions can be discarded, then everyone saw everything and could keep a record of it.

Can public nodes see the values of transactions?  Can they see which previous transaction the value came from?  If they can, then they know everything.  If they can't, then they couldn't verify that the value came from a valid source, so you couldn't take their generated chain as verification of it.

Does it hide the bitcoin addresses?  Is that it?  OK, maybe now I see, if that's it.

Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding".  I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there.  "group signatures" may be related.

There's something here in the general area:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/crypto/rh/

What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key.  The blinded variations would have the same properties as the root public key, such that the private key could generate a signature for any one of them.  Others could not tell if a blinded key is related to the root key, or other blinded keys from the same root key.  These are the properties of blinding.  Blinding, in a nutshell, is x = (x * large_random_int) mod m.

When paying to a bitcoin address, you would generate a new blinded key for each use.

Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key.  I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property.  If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in.  With group signatures, it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it.

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

[tvbcof]

Looks to me like he was just smoothing over some ruffled feathers since someone happened to notice his 1MB protocol setting.  Clever guy was the ol' Satosh.

Thought you might discount such clear evidence.

Theymos had this interpretation:

- something

Caveden said this:

- something -

Ya, well, MysteryMiner said he's Iranian and hates colored people (except he was more explicit.)  Right here on TrollTalk!

It's a sure bet that these guys are smart enough to know what Satoshi was thinking.

It sure doesn't take much to make you certain of something.

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

[Melbustus]

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.

[solex]

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it. 

Nope. He made lots of changes and didn't comment on them.

I actually don't think I was around when Satoshi put the 1mb limit in place. I played with Bitcoin back in early 2009 but nobody used it so I lost interest and came back later. Back then he routinely made big or hard forking changes to the protocol in giant commits that mixed many changes together and had no useful descriptions. It was still his personal toy/prototype thing, so he got away with things we wouldn't be able to do today.

I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

[tvbcof]

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.

Hearn pointed that out too.  For a while I was pretty demoralized by this, but now I think that perhaps he was actually playing the burgeoning community along realizing that very few of them really had the vision and technical prowess to see beyond very far into the future.  We may never know.

For my part I find it hard to believe that Satoshi could have (and would have) achieved what he did just to make a PayPal-II, and I am certain that he would have seen that this is exactly what it would become under a scenario as he described.  I also very much doubt that he blew it on his infrastructure capacity estimates as badly as he did (though in fairness, if he really did welcome the centralization of which he speaks it is true now 5 years later that corporate entities have plenty of capacity to run very high transaction rates...as it was when he (supposedly) wrote that.)

[Melbustus]

...

You don't seem to give Satoshi himself much credit.  He surely would have recognized the significance of slipping in the 1MB block size and commented on the commit if he felt like discussing it.  I'd say he likely had something deeper in mind.  But unlike our friends above, I don't pretend that my mind reading abilities are strong enough to overcome the space-time continuum.

Satoshi didn't seem to consider it a problem for bitcoin to centralize significantly:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
...

There's also the metzdowd quote along those lines from Nov 2008.

Hearn pointed that out too.  For a while I was pretty demoralized by this, but now I think that perhaps he was actually playing the burgeoning community along realizing that very few of them really had the vision and technical prowess to see beyond very far into the future.  We may never know.

For my part I find it hard to believe that Satoshi could have (and would have) achieved what he did just to make a PayPal-II, and I am certain that he would have seen that this is exactly what it would become under a scenario as he described.  I also very much doubt that he blew it on his infrastructure capacity estimates as badly as he did (though in fairness, if he really did welcome the centralization of which he speaks it is true now 5 years later that corporate entities have plenty of capacity to run very high transaction rates...as it was when he (supposedly) wrote that.)

Go read through his posts. He was a pragmatist. I really don't think he considered a significant degree of consolidation to be a systemic problem. He may not of considered it ideal, but he probably (correctly, in my opinion) considered it both inevitable and non-fatal.