Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 715. (Read 2032266 times)

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

and the same path is available for BTC to flow to SC through federated peg built specifically for this purpose by anyone.

you still haven't argued why Blockstream clients would prefer the uncertainty of MM to the security, control & oversight of federated server model

So how do you explain this


You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?

As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ?

Or improve them.


What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

maybe.  i'll take your word for it.

not proven.  we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read

i don't have to.  i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen.  otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen.

i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen.  or else.

Keep working on it bro; it'll happen for you.

no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue.  

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money.  

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven

2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven

3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works

4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.

And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the SPVProof to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC

Back to the bike!

If SPV proofs make it into the core, and SPV proofs are wonderful additions to the Bitcoin economy, everyone starts using them, some very interesting Side Chains are created, and about 1/10th of all bitcoin is on various side chains.

Transactions on the MC have slowed, more transactions are now on side chains.

Bitcoin MC then gets 51% attacked, by miners not supporting OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.  The attacker pools swiftly verify those 1.3 million bitcoin that are on side chains, unlocking them, and dumping them on every exchange that has a bid of any size.

But there aren't enough bidders on any exchange, bitcoin price drops to $10 and they have only sold half of them so they mix the rest and disappear.

How does Bitcoin recover from this?  

This is a bit worse than your typical 51% enabling a double spend or two.

And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the federated peg to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC

I'm cool with being forced temporarily into a federated model because it will provoke developments and relationships needed to make it a credible defense mechanism.  As such, it has the realistic potential to thwart various kinds of superior resources attacks (specifically 51% types and global network attack forms) as well as judicial ones.

Its crystal clear you have no clue. b/c you can use SPVProof as much as Blockstream can.

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).   

Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. 

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.