Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 713. (Read 2032266 times)

save it from what?

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).    

But sidechains can potentially save Bitcoin. Unfortunately you're too dumb to see it.

It is not. It is a very intuitive and quite logical assumption.

The necessary level of MM required to provide secure infrastructure is not guaranteed and hardly attainable unless a chain gets the support of the whole network.

What other option exist then to secure your chain? Federated servers. They are the option of choice for any actors willing to excercise more control and oversight over their sidechain.

Until you argue against this I will consider this fact.

And stop uttering meaningless words like "institutionalizes" and what not. This is open source software we are talking about. SPV proof is indeed the preferred outcome for the reasons I have stated : more decentralized & conservation of miners incentive.

The BS is your pathetic attempt at moving goal posts and inability to properly address every one of your arguments. You are a sad, sad person.


Blockstream will be pretty good a creating sidechains, I agree. Fortunately, because of... you know... OPEN SOURCE, millions of developers will also have their hand at it.

Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours.

So let us again turn your argument against you.

By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain.

This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain.

Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like.

So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services?

Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine.

See how this goes both way?  

that's BS.  they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome.  but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream

ftfy.  don't be fooled by this guy.

stay on topic, what type of an answer is a diversion?

How does this adress my arguments?

abusing their powerful 40% of core dev + 3 major committers to try and force this SPVproof thru, refusing to resign if implemented, setting up a for profit Blockstream company designed to profit off of said SPVproof is NOT open source development.

especially when it comes down to Bitcoin as Sound Money, which is a public good, that is NOT supposed to be subject to improprieties or a vested interest group.

that's BS.  they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome.  but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream