Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!
You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 711. (Read 2032266 times)
Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!
You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear.
Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!!
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
How do you want replace all money with SC ?
Quote
Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.
SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.
Quote
Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic)
Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
How do you want replace all money with SC ?
Quote
Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.
SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.
Quote
Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic)
scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof
=> "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)
In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.
At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail. Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering) It is not a small thing.
So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental. And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.
Not only on the world of computing. :-) (finance, gov, ...)
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
How do you want replace all money with SC ?
Quote
Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.
SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.
Quote
Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking. Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof
=> "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)
In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.
At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail. Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering) It is not a small thing.
So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental. And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.
Useful proof of work also changes incentives
"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.
We can do contract using OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY.
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
Useful proof of work also changes incentives
"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.
1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY into block without valid "SideChain proof" then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?
It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework. Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it. New math changes things.
Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
- Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful? e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
- I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work.
Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.
Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.
With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.
The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.
Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about. Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.
Bitcoin is just an experiment right? We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we? So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?
scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof
=> "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.
1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY into block without valid "SideChain proof" then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?
It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework. Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it. New math changes things.
Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
- Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful? e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
- I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work.
Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.
Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.
With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.
The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.
Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about. Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.
Bitcoin is just an experiment right? We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we? So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.
1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY into block without valid "SideChain proof" then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?
It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework. Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it. New math changes things.
Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
- Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful? e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
- I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work.
Edit:
=> If you fold enough Proteins then you can withdraw this bitcoins :-)
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.
1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY into block without valid "SideChain proof" then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?
It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework. Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it. New math changes things.
hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here
Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.
is ISIS gog or magog? ^^
hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here
Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.
1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY into block without valid "SideChain proof" then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs. If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid. If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.
Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.
Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork). My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid). What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.
As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof. All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A). The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B). So we get a forked blockchain…
Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain. When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B. Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain.
However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.
TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision. It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).
You are right, but SPV proofs can be combined using multi-signatures and oracles. => SPV proof and/or oracle/authority signature are valid transactions too.
Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles. But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).
I agree. Whitepaper gives them name "Co-signed SPV proofs"
Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs. If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid. If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.
Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.
Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork). My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid). What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.
As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof. All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A). The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B). So we get a forked blockchain…
Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain. When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B. Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain.
However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.
TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision. It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).
That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up.
You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a result, then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang, and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition.
They can't jam anything through. The developers still need to get miners to run their code.
the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks. where did all that FUD go? and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:
What are you talking about?
When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechainsand that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.
The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.
At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.
It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.
The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.
The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.
It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network
who really needs absolute anonymity? sure, for illegal stuff. but most of us don't do that.
Please don't make me laugh...
i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity. therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.
since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?
since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?
I'm so glad we got to the bottom of this.
brg444 and Blockstream are here to fix Bitcoin.
All hail to the new Fedstream!
Jump to: