Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 704. (Read 2032265 times)

I think there are 2 things:

1. if OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is threat to Bitcoin  b/c I did not find any.

2. How safe are BTC locked in MC by OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  => but we do not have enough information about implementation (at least I do not have)

I am only able to sample this thread lately due to time constraints so I apologize if my responses have already been covered.


But its not really separated is it?  The BTC unit remains on the mainchain, "locked", essentially backing the sidechain.  Its like paper gold being backed by phys, except that it impossible to hide naked paper.  As a one-time holder of phyz gold and silver, I imagine that you'd agree that problems with the paper are unlikely to significantly affect the actual gold in your vault, except perhaps by removing value that the paper conferred (that is, many people think that gold ETFs drove the rise due by opening a larger market, and of course that additional value also floated phys).


I would prefer the devs work independently too, but reality isn't perfect.  But again, the BTC are not "flowing off" the Bitcoin ledger... BTC is simply being used to transparently back another chain.


If there really will be 1000 entities who need sidechains, we now have 1000 additional uses for Bitcoin which will massively increase demand for coins and resulting in a huge price increase.  This is a great problem to have.

We already imagine that if Bitcoin gains a large pct of the world's txns, it may not scale, resulting in high txn fees, and therefore may end up being used mostly for large transfers.  In your 1000 entities scenario, the only difference is that instead of large opaque transfers (we don't know anything about the BTC transfer just that it happened), we can see that X coins moved from SC A to SC B.

But running a SC does have overhead and risk.  It seems obvious to me that companies will use the mainchain if possible (that is, it scales and can capture the transaction).

You can't stop innovation.  If in the SC future there will be 1000 sidechains backed with Bitcoin, in the non-SC future there will be 1000 altcoins, and Bitcoin's market cap will be 1000 times lower then it could have been.

I have noticed that the arguments for the sidechais restlessly wanders all over the place.

Is the sidechain discussion done?

Has anyone else noticed that we have won a major, major concession from brg444 inadvertently?

For the first 150 pages or so of this debate he has argued that SC's are one and the same ledger as bitcoin. He had contorted that definition with terms like "extensions"  or "sub ledgers"  in his rush to defend Blockstream and SC's .

Now,  for the last 50  pages or so he has inadvertently given up that battle and now inexplicably agrees with with every argument I've used assuming that they are in fact different ledgers.  This is what happens when you're blindy  defending something based not on principle but emotion.

And that is a major victory. Certainly one worth pointing out. The different ledger theory is a major pillar of the objection against SC's due to their insecurity and potential for manipulation.  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7682680

Lots of people think this.  Lots don't.  
Most of the people will just follow along with the majority authority, whether it is right or isn't right.

It may take a much longer time to find out whether it is or isn't good, than it takes for these decisions to be made, so there won't be any going back.


Smaller stakeholders may be more inclined to just say "hey its only an experiment, lets try it and see if it works".  It remains an important test (to me at least) whether the larger stakeholders would agree.

So our task is to show how it is safe, if we can.
We do this by analyzing the risks, not by pretending there aren't any.
This analysis is not yet begun.  We don't even have a good test proposal yet.

What will do OP_RETURN ?

I think it is good for everyone. And everyone will vote with their money in the end. :-)

Yes.  It is very clear to everyone that implementing an OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY into the Bitcoin protocol is good for Blockstream, and good for the Side Chains.
It is less clear that it is good for the Bitcoin protocol.

Then when "but we can do everything with federation and oracle already today, so we should just do it" is added to the argument, it makes anyone with a wary eye look at this as if it were a slimy sales technique.

If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future?

Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source?
(This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.)

There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology.
It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere.
I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others.  The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't.

I wish them every success.

Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications.
Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"?

Any side chain can of course be implemented entirely without Bitcoin at all.  Perhaps, some would not be viable as federated systems, such as those needing a true zero trust environment and wanting to also hold BTC in their chain.  
Its not really a zero trust application if you are trusting an oracle.  Those would be fairly esoteric though, probably most of the ones that are being seriously contemplated would be accepted with a federated system, with the exception of those that may be requiring extraordinary security.  If it is something where folks don't trust that the federating entity isn't their enemy in disguise.  It would be one trust removed to have the protocol change.

Without the Bitcoin network running the verification, why use Bitcoin at all though?  Might as well use an Altcoin as the "separated currency".
It would be a better bootstrap to prove the case anyway.

Though some of the issues are insidious and won't manifest their effects until there are a lot of locked coin.


Federated systems work fine until the federated server (or the Bitcoin network) goes away.
Bitcoin works fine, until the Bitcoin network goes away.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

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.