Pegged Sidechains [PDF Whitepaper]

<< < (22/23) > >>

Talor:
Quote from: smoothie on January 03, 2015, 01:13:50 AM

There are so many presumptions about what a pegged side chain to BTC would look like.

That is to presume the security of the SC would be equal or greater than the current BTC master chain. I highly doubt that will ever be the case.

If there was ever equal or greater security on a SC then why not have everyone just switch to the more secure chain?

To peg them and say they are "equal" and coins are transferrable between them makes little sense as one chain will always be more secure or have more infrastructure to support it.

Seems like a broken idea to me.

sony xperia z2 hülle

cbeast:
Quote from: smoothie on January 03, 2015, 01:13:50 AM

There are so many presumptions about what a pegged side chain to BTC would look like.

That is to presume the security of the SC would be equal or greater than the current BTC master chain. I highly doubt that will ever be the case.

If there was ever equal or greater security on a SC then why not have everyone just switch to the more secure chain?

To peg them and say they are "equal" and coins are transferrable between them makes little sense as one chain will always be more secure or have more infrastructure to support it.

Seems like a broken idea to me.

It is a broken idea, but switching to another chain is either done via proof of burn, two way peg, or a hard fork. Either way it's a serious change. The SC idea isn't that bad an idea, but in the end, they would probably lead to more security issue due to added complexity. If it can be done, it will be done, but honey-badger don't care, and I'm tired of the whining from SC folks. Just do it.

Amir Taaki wants to bring complete anonymity to Bitcoin. First he has to demonstrate it on other blockchains. The SC developers can demonstrate it on an altcoin and if it works, then Bitcoin can adopt it. If they come up with a two-way peg that works, then the trade-off for whatever benefit the SC offers may be worth some sacrifice, like security or functionality. It's unlikely it can be more secure than Bitcoin AND have other benefits. If they did, then just hard fork Bitcoin.

adam3us:
Quote from: outahere on January 04, 2015, 06:32:49 AM

Amir Taaki wants to bring complete anonymity to Bitcoin. First he has to demonstrate it on other blockchains. The SC developers can demonstrate it on an altcoin and if it works, then Bitcoin can adopt it. If they come up with a two-way peg that works, then the trade-off for whatever benefit the SC offers may be worth some sacrifice, like security or functionality. It's unlikely it can be more secure than Bitcoin AND have other benefits. If they did, then just hard fork Bitcoin.

One way in which a side-chain would not be identical to bitcoin is it has different features. Unless we have provable security the added complexity would tend to make a side-chain less secure. (And thats a reason for side-chains .. so that people can get access to more features without exposing other people to the risks relating to their feature).

For now there are also security tradeoffs in the 2wp mechanism, so that is another source of difference.

But in the future, if for example snarks or some other innovation becomes a proven secure cryptographic construct, then we can have security-equal sidechains (and security-equal smart-phones). And then it may be possible to have a more secure side-chain: make a simplified side-chain that doesnt include bitcoin-script, p2sh, etc ie strips a bunch of stuff for pure cold storage. Of course you also have the incentive compatibility issue, however over time the difference erodes as volume & hence fees increase and reward decreases as we get through more halvings.

Adam

cbeast:
Once the genie is out of the bottle and someone creates a new technology, expect the bad actors to be first in line.

adam3us:
Quote from: outahere on January 04, 2015, 03:33:05 PM

Once the genie is out of the bottle and someone creates a new technology, expect the bad actors to be first in line.

Indeed the scammers are out in force in bitcoin land, as I said on the other chain:

its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it. People could certify chains (like sign them - "my name is blah and I'm a security researcher with reputation and I and my buddies audited this code and its good") or wallets could etc. Its good and a feature that people can opt to use uncertified chains. You want a situation where there is real open possibility for technical innovation & competition in chain features.

You also want no central control so no chains can get black listed.

Adam

Navigation

 Message Index