Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 700. (Read 2032265 times)

legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 16, 2014, 03:45:34 PM
Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

I think we are getting closer.
Help me to understand what the codebase is, upon which this SPV does its verification.  Is it not the Side Chain?
So perforce Bitcoin must trust each of the side chains' proof mechanisms.
Side Chains may or may not be open source, and the source may or may not get decent analysis with each update.
The complexity risks are interesting in that they enable so many long cons.


SC-client will perform SPV proof
Quote
8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain


Using SNARKs he can create proof
1. that he "keeps a copy of ALL the block headers of the longest proof-of-work sc-chain" -> user will compress 80 M of sc-headers into few hashes
2. that this sc-chain contains transaction where he destroyed scBTC and this transaction is 2 days old


Edit:
It is not exactly what SC whitepaper say => how to compress SPV
How to compress SPV is detail :-)  we can use SNARKs/SCIP to do verify it has been done.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 16, 2014, 03:44:26 PM
My argumented has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

Not being done much today? Are you kidding me?

Coinbase, Counterparty, Coloredcoins, Bistamp.

Every exchanges, any "off-chain" schemes present the exact risk I am referring to. The trend is VERY clear in that sense.

Do you not think that these are security concerns and have a HIGH-risk potential to temper with the Bitcoin ledger?

Is it not true that with proper implementations sidechains are a very tempting alternative to these?

once again, you misunderstand. 

they can mess with their own internal ledgers but any BTC deposited to the general deposit address still lies on the MC.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:37:56 PM
You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles".  If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life?  Talk about a double standard.

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you? 


Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.


 Cheesy Cheesy

of course! to no surprise cypher doesn't catch an obvious sarcasm/joke attempt
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1004
November 16, 2014, 03:37:41 PM
Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
November 16, 2014, 03:36:47 PM
You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles".  If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life?  Talk about a double standard.

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you? 


Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.

legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
November 16, 2014, 03:34:01 PM
So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.

https://github.com/scipr-lab

Thanks for this...
(you may not see me here for a while)
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:33:32 PM

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

Bingo!

It doesn't actually do this though.  Not yet at least.  The trusted counterparty being the proof provider.
There are precious few folks that can do a good analysis of that counterparty.  The best anyone else can do is trust the evaluation.

Good cryptography takes some time to evaluate, it is complicated.  They should not expect this to be rushed.

:-)  This proof will create user who want exit from SC. Bitcoin miner only verifies this proof. If other user on SC will see it it not valid proof then he can provide valid (with more PoW).

Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

thank you, very clear explanation
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:31:09 PM
Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?

The work of miners creating the output?

To be quite honest this part is confusing to me but from my understanding SNARKs are an optional method to this whole mechanism?

Maybe I'm wrong?

SNARK proof and SPV proof are not same proofs.

I understand that, which is why I'm not so sure why NL is introducing this "requirement" in the discussion.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
November 16, 2014, 03:30:57 PM
Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

I think we are getting closer.
Help me to understand what the codebase is, upon which this SPV does its verification.  Is it not the Side Chain?
So perforce Bitcoin must trust each of the side chains' proof mechanisms.
Side Chains may or may not be open source, and the source may or may not get decent analysis with each update.
The complexity risks are interesting in that they enable so many long cons.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 16, 2014, 03:29:37 PM
Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?

The work of miners creating the output?

To be quite honest this part is confusing to me but from my understanding SNARKs are an optional method to this whole mechanism?

Maybe I'm wrong?

SNARK proof and SPV proof are not same proofs.

Edit:
Maybe SPV proof can be implemented as SNARK proof ... but I'm not sure .. just idea
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:23:53 PM
Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?

The work of miners creating the output?

To be quite honest this part is confusing to me but from my understanding SNARKs are an optional method to this whole mechanism?

Maybe I'm wrong?
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 16, 2014, 03:23:26 PM
So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.

https://github.com/scipr-lab
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:19:11 PM

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 Huh

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?
Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

 Huh

They don't have to reinvent SNARKS. Only understanding and implemention implementation is required now.
Surely you are not suggesting the Blockstream crew are the only ones able to do that.

So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.


Once the SPVproof maths have been properly reviewed and vetted by the community (much like Bitcoin or any other propositions are) then its open source code nature will make it available for anyone to tinker with and come away with their own applications and implementations.

The comparison to Google is somewhat pulled out of nowhere. Sure I imagine their success will be comparable but it is not because of them having built a service that benefits from network effect. They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field.

The comparison to Google is apt.  They capitalized on new compression mathematics that they didn't develop, but came out of the human genome project.  Blockstream is also hoping to capitalize on the network effect of Bitcoin, otherwise this would be developed on an altcoin and vetted more properly before plugging it into Bitcoin.

In the lab you can evaluate the code and technology, but not the economics.  At best you can model that, and even the best models fail constantly.
Remember 2008?  Greenspan's models failed.  They all fail ultimately.  The map is not the terrain.

Did you bring SNARKs into the discussion to fit your narrative?

I will repeat : They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field. Sure they are piggybacking off Bitcoin's network effect as in it guarantees the long term viability of their business model but they have no network effect proprietary to their service and working for THEM.

Are you so shortsighted that you don't accept the eventuality that IBM, Microsoft, Google, Redhat will find interest in developing their own sidechains or the ones they could be mandated to create by clients.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 16, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV.  

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

they "think" Bitcoin is broken, just like many dead bodies along the way like:  Bitcorn, Kaminsky, Emin Gun Sirer, and thousands of others.  nope.  like i am fond of saying "most investors in cryptocurrenices are going to lose money".  yep, and it's b/c they don't understand Bitcoin.
Quote
Quote
SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative
to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

scBTC cannot perform same functionality as SIDECURENCY.  they are both independent currencies riding on the same SC.  there is not even the possibility that any dev would fork SIDECURENCY into Bitcoin.  that doesn't even make sense as why would Bitcoin bring in a competing SIDECURENCY into the MC?  no, Bitcoin will forever have to live with SIDECURENCY mooching off value from Bitcoin itself.

why ? (Edit: scBTC cannot perform same functionality as SIDECURENCY.)
if 1 sideGOLD = 1 oz of physical GOLD then we have BTC <-> GOLD exchange
If 1 sideGOLD is not redeemable for 1 oz of physical GOLD then what is difference between scBTC and sideGOLD ?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
November 16, 2014, 03:14:07 PM
Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

What is the proof provider that the SPV is verifying?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
November 16, 2014, 03:12:29 PM

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 Huh

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?
Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

 Huh

They don't have to reinvent SNARKS. Only understanding and implemention implementation is required now.
Surely you are not suggesting the Blockstream crew are the only ones able to do that.

So you concede that there are no others and it is not a lie?
Help me out so that I can be the 2nd then, and make that a lie as you would like to have it.  
Where is the open-sourced SNARKs repository?  I've not had a chance to look for it yet.


Once the SPVproof maths have been properly reviewed and vetted by the community (much like Bitcoin or any other propositions are) then its open source code nature will make it available for anyone to tinker with and come away with their own applications and implementations.

The comparison to Google is somewhat pulled out of nowhere. Sure I imagine their success will be comparable but it is not because of them having built a service that benefits from network effect. They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field.

The comparison to Google is apt.  They capitalized on new compression mathematics that they didn't develop, but came out of the human genome project.  Blockstream is also hoping to capitalize on the network effect of Bitcoin, otherwise this would be developed on an altcoin and vetted more properly before plugging it into Bitcoin.

In the lab you can evaluate the code and technology, but not the economics.  At best you can model that, and even the best models fail constantly.
Remember 2008?  Greenspan's models failed.  They all fail ultimately.  The map is not the terrain.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:10:07 PM
This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

This is a blatant lie.

Blockstream submitted the whitepaper. The community will have to vet the technology and subsequently  make plans for it to be implemented, as a consensus.

SPVproof is neutral open source code. It favors no one. You could argue as cypherdoc does that they have a "head-start" in that they have already assembled a team of highly competent cryptographer to support their business model.

What everyone here fails to ignore is that ANY competitor could've done the same. As you have pointed out the technology was up for grabs and could've been conceptualized and proposed through a white paper by any other team of developers that care enough.

How is SPV federated when the miners do the work!?

So... name the 2nd company and prove the lie?


SPV proof is only half the game.  The proof provider is the other half.  All SPV does is verify what the proof provider is doing.
The "head-start" is about half a decade ahead of anyone else, and draws from a very small pool of experts.  Practically draining that pool.
It is disingenuous to suggest that ANYONE can do this.  It is taking very good advantage of a very privileged position.

The miners do the work of mining.  They do not do the work of SNARKs.  They do not create the proof, they do not cryptographically codify all the code that underpins the proof.  They simply verify.  The bulk of the work here is not done by the miners.

Roll Eyes

I cannot name you a company because obviously no other team of developers has had enough vision and foresight, or quity realize the potential of sidechains and build a company around them. Do not worry, they will come. In fact, this sounds like something Google, IBM, the actual Redhat, would be VERY interested in doing.

I will spare you the use of cypherdoc's favorite pet (Truthcoin) as an example because I too frankly doubt such amateurs would succeed in creating a sidechain than anyone but some very lost fools would adopt.

Why are we even discussing SNARKs anyway? They are only but a long shot. SPVProof does not require the use of SNARKs.

legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1000
November 16, 2014, 03:06:23 PM
Using SNARKs  it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"

Like I said... its tasty bait.  Very tasty.
I still want to know where the hooks are as best as I can before I chomp down.

And there are other ways to do this particular proof, just not so real-time.

user account verified by SNARKs. (exchange blockchain -> order book + hidden order book )
and exchangeBTC locked by 2wp SPV proof


:-) very tasty,
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
November 16, 2014, 03:00:59 PM

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 Huh

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?
Is there another?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

You are underestimating the accomplishment of SNARKs.  It took a very large array of expensive computers, a few years of dedicated time by some of the smartest minds in cryptography, some luck and a lot of dedication and persistence.  A large grant from the EU.  And a very deep, and very specialized mathematics background.

It is pretty a similar set of requirements for starting another Google.  And I think Blockstream may well be the next Google.  If I were Google, I'd have bought them already.

 Huh

They don't have to reinvent SNARKS. Only understanding and implemention is required now. Surely you are not suggesting the Blockstream crew are the only ones able to do that.

Once the SPVproof maths have been properly reviewed and vetted by the community (much like Bitcoin or any other propositions are) then its open source code nature will make it available for anyone to tinker with and come away with their own applications and implementations.

The comparison to Google is somewhat pulled out of nowhere. Sure I imagine their success will be comparable but it is not because of them having built a service that benefits from network effect. They are consultants & developers. They don't have any proprietary product or service to offer except their expertise in the crypto field.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
November 16, 2014, 03:00:31 PM
Using SNARKs  it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"

Like I said... its tasty bait.  Very tasty.
I still want to know where the hooks are as best as I can before I chomp down.

And there are other ways to do this particular proof, just not so real-time.
Jump to: