Germican (OP)
Member
 Offline
Activity: 82
Merit: 10
|
 |
October 30, 2014, 08:58:08 PM |
|
I've seen a lot of news with coins like counterparty XCP especially with the deal with overstock. But i also hear that sidechains can do exactly what XCP is trying to do. Other than the distribution what really is the difference between using sidechains vs XCP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum strives to allow free discussion of any ideas. All policies are built around this principle. This doesn't mean you can post garbage, though: posts should actually contain ideas, and these ideas should be argued reasonably.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bassclef
|
|
October 30, 2014, 09:29:43 PM |
|
XCP is technically a sidechain. They have first mover advantage being used by Overstock to develop a decentralized digital asset exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
Germican (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 82
Merit: 10
|
|
October 30, 2014, 10:06:31 PM |
|
XCP is technically a sidechain. They have first mover advantage being used by Overstock to develop a decentralized digital asset exchange.
But isn't an aspect of sidechains the ability to move bitcoins to and from the sidechain as needed? Since X amount of bitcoins were burned and there is a fixed amount of XCP it can't be converted back? Can't a sidechain be implemented that has the same technology as XCP but utilizes bitcoin? The only difference would be that the amount on that sidechain wouldn't be fixed but instead still tied to the value of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
|
mikewirth
|
|
October 30, 2014, 10:34:22 PM |
|
XCP is technically a sidechain. They have first mover advantage being used by Overstock to develop a decentralized digital asset exchange.
But isn't an aspect of sidechains the ability to move bitcoins to and from the sidechain as needed? Since X amount of bitcoins were burned and there is a fixed amount of XCP it can't be converted back? Can't a sidechain be implemented that has the same technology as XCP but utilizes bitcoin? The only difference would be that the amount on that sidechain wouldn't be fixed but instead still tied to the value of bitcoin. The administrator of this website is on drugs. One of the most important issues in bitcoin is the development in bitcoin 2.0. But since Theymos or someone else hates bitcoin 2.0 - everything gets lumped into 'Alts'. Alts is the dumbest bullshit waste of time in all of cryptography and bitcoin 2.0 is the most incredible interesting development since Satoshi got the first itch. Why the hell can we have a sub forum for all the interesting 2.0 projects? Somebody with some sense needs to start a bitcoin forum without a stupid bias. |
|
|
|
|
Germican (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 82
Merit: 10
|
|
October 30, 2014, 10:49:31 PM |
|
XCP is technically a sidechain. They have first mover advantage being used by Overstock to develop a decentralized digital asset exchange.
But isn't an aspect of sidechains the ability to move bitcoins to and from the sidechain as needed? Since X amount of bitcoins were burned and there is a fixed amount of XCP it can't be converted back? Can't a sidechain be implemented that has the same technology as XCP but utilizes bitcoin? The only difference would be that the amount on that sidechain wouldn't be fixed but instead still tied to the value of bitcoin. The administrator of this website is on drugs. One of the most important issues in bitcoin is the development in bitcoin 2.0. But since Theymos or someone else hates bitcoin 2.0 - everything gets lumped into 'Alts'. Alts is the dumbest bullshit waste of time in all of cryptography and bitcoin 2.0 is the most incredible interesting development since Satoshi got the first itch. Why the hell can we have a sub forum for all the interesting 2.0 projects? Somebody with some sense needs to start a bitcoin forum without a stupid bias. Uhhh sorry but this doesn't seem to be on topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
theblacksquid
|
|
October 31, 2014, 01:58:53 AM |
|
XCP is technically a sidechain. They have first mover advantage being used by Overstock to develop a decentralized digital asset exchange.
But isn't an aspect of sidechains the ability to move bitcoins to and from the sidechain as needed? Since X amount of bitcoins were burned and there is a fixed amount of XCP it can't be converted back? Can't a sidechain be implemented that has the same technology as XCP but utilizes bitcoin? The only difference would be that the amount on that sidechain wouldn't be fixed but instead still tied to the value of bitcoin. The administrator of this website is on drugs. One of the most important issues in bitcoin is the development in bitcoin 2.0. But since Theymos or someone else hates bitcoin 2.0 - everything gets lumped into 'Alts'. Alts is the dumbest bullshit waste of time in all of cryptography and bitcoin 2.0 is the most incredible interesting development since Satoshi got the first itch. Why the hell can we have a sub forum for all the interesting 2.0 projects? Somebody with some sense needs to start a bitcoin forum without a stupid bias. I have to say, that was a bit uncalled for... As for XCP v sidechains? From what I could see, but I might be dead wrong here, that XCP could be subsumed into a sidechain shared with the Bitcoin blockchain. |
|
|
|
jabo38
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1001
mining is so 2012-2013
|
|
October 31, 2014, 02:41:37 AM |
|
I don't know much about this, but I think CounterParty isn't a side chain. It is using Bitcoins blockchain. It is basically a platform running on Bitcoin.
A sidechain is really a different chain that at times is locked into the Bitcoin blockchain, that basically the two chains interact with each other.
At least that is the way I understand it.
Back to the OP's question, which one is better a platform built on a sidechain or a platform built on top of the bitcoin code?
Well..... Counterparty has the first mover advantage, and since there isn't even a single side chain running in real life, CounterParty is clearly better.
This speaks to the fact that it is much easier to build on Bitcoin than it is to connect to the side. IF and thats a pretty big IF, sidechains are implemented they could in theory do more than CounterParty is doing now.
Then again, by that time CounterParty might evolve to also have new functions. That is what is going on right now where CounterParty and Overstock have teamed up to build an entirely new product called Mercedi.
|
|
|
|
|
theblacksquid
|
|
October 31, 2014, 03:17:57 AM |
|
I don't know much about this, but I think CounterParty isn't a side chain. It is using Bitcoins blockchain. It is basically a platform running on Bitcoin.
A sidechain is really a different chain that at times is locked into the Bitcoin blockchain, that basically the two chains interact with each other.
At least that is the way I understand it.
Back to the OP's question, which one is better a platform built on a sidechain or a platform built on top of the bitcoin code?
Well..... Counterparty has the first mover advantage, and since there isn't even a single side chain running in real life, CounterParty is clearly better.
This speaks to the fact that it is much easier to build on Bitcoin than it is to connect to the side. IF and thats a pretty big IF, sidechains are implemented they could in theory do more than CounterParty is doing now.
Then again, by that time CounterParty might evolve to also have new functions. That is what is going on right now where CounterParty and Overstock have teamed up to build an entirely new product called Mercedi.
Thanks for clarifying that!  |
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
October 31, 2014, 03:22:08 AM |
|
In principle, counterparty is a side chain because it is parasitic to Bitcoin. The parasitic nature keeps it from being peggable with Bitcoin. It also makes it more flexible with how experimental it can become knowing that you are throwing away bitcoins as a risk for greater rewards. It destroys bitcoins, but the law of diminishing returns would prevent counterparty clones from completely killing its host Bitcoin because they would require less and less bitcoins as bitcoins grow in value.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
|
