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?
Coinbase and Bitstamp are off-chain solution providers, and a different thing entirely.
Might as well lump in Lamborghini, the Federal government and anyone who has a bitcoin wallet and provides a good or service.
Counterparty is open source and on chain, there is no secret sauce proof provider there, except what some individual may negotiate with another p2p.
Yes, I think a proper implementation of side chains would be a best case scenario.
It has incredible implications and can solve a vast array of problems, Bitcoin is the least of it, but a good one, a great one.
It is a VERY tasty bait. We are looking for where the hooks and line are so that we can best avoid them and enjoy it with gusto.
We may need to nibble before we bite and swallow.
I think that SNARKs is going to see action, for better or worse. I think the primary customers are going to be governments (and they can pay much more in fiat than Bitcoin can, and also can do things with guns and jails). It would be nice to have it as a part of private distributed money system as well. The implementation matters though.
Using SNARKs it is very easy to audit bitcoin exchange ... almost real time proof that there are not "naked btc"