Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 732. (Read 2032266 times)

How about to provide a service via that sidechain that is paid for in BTC pegged currency?  I'd much rather innovate to earn BTC than innovate and then have to worry about bootstrapping a currency.

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".

so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

ok. thanks for the clarification.

The paper reference a more detailed description of atomic swaps here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2224949

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.

And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology.  So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with.  Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.

Side chains may certainly differ from each other, but I don't see any reason that it would not be possible to atomic swap so long as they support the script functions like OP_DUP,  OP_HASH160, hash, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG, SIGHASH_ALL.

Atomic swaps don't involve BTC, they involve scBTC and an altcoin that also exists on the sidechain along with the scBTC.

Thanks for the explanation.

Now setting aside time consideration do you confirm that is possible exchanging BTC and scBTC through atomic swaps?
(I'm asking b/c notme says is not possible)

edit: slightly clarify the question.

Atomic swaps don't remove it, but they are a different sort of exchange entirely.  They are a sort of middle ground, in between in terms of time and autonomy.  
They are p2p and negotiated (rather than something I can do on my own via exchange or SPV)
They also have a time requirement, just not as long.  
They could be somewhat automated with a hosted order book, so they may end up being closer to the exchange model, which would give them a bit of a premium over the SPV method.
The SPV folks (presumably the slowest of these three, each are more or less unused) pay in time and save in money.

Atomic swaps don't involve BTC, they involve scBTC and an altcoin that also exists on the sidechain along with the scBTC.

Correct.  I think its worth clarifying that the peg is algorithmic, because its seems from the thread that some people may not understand that.  You, personally, can ask the network automatically to swap unlimited quantities of BTC on the sidechain for BTC on the main bitcoin chain.

The only reason to swap with users using atomic swaps or trades is to do that faster.  No one is going to take anything other than a negligible price difference because they can click a button and move the coins between chains themselves.

Further because that 2wp backstop is there, and anyone and his dog can do arbitrage, with full confidence that they'll be able to exercise the 2wp and capitalise on the small time-preference, the will be small.  It seems just as likely that the sidechain coins sell at a small premium for the time-preference access to side-chain features.  (Time-preference means someones preference to gain access to something sooner rather than waiting eg 24hrs, and they'll sometimes be willing to pay a small fee to get it earlier, eg check advances or such things).

I dont think it realistic that we would see anyone willing to sell sidechain BTC at anything significantly below par in either direction, to do so is to burn money needlessly.  People will arbitrage it and its open to anyone to arbitrage.  So unless someone wants to burn money (and bitcoin already supports proof of burn or pay to miners if you're into burning money or donating to miners), no one will be offering to swap sidechain BTC for BTC at anything far below or above $350 (assuming current market price of $350).  eg $349.50 to $350.50 might be an example which is 15 basis points, that'd give someone a 15% return on an annual basis with steady arbitrage for a 2 day clearance time on the peg.  They can maybe get a higher return (and hence be willing to offer even lower margins) by holding a float on both sides and cancelling some trades against others as those happen faster so they get more than one arbitrage fee per exercise of the 2wp.

Obviously no one is encouraging anyone to put real money into untested or buggy sidechains.  I dont think there will be lots of sidechains and the main sidechains will be extremely well tested and coded to the same rigor as bitcoin itself.

Adam

Fedstream works in the "old system" where people run it and requires trust along the whole process. Conflict of interest is a very big concern. Bitcoin on the other hand is not a financial system built by trusted networks of people but on code. It's a protocol designed in such a way we don't have to trust people but rather the protocol. And because it is open-source we can always see how it is working.  

I wouldn't worry too much about Blockstream. They seem like a bunch of good guys AND the entire community gets to monitor all their work. It will all be out in the open.

Blockstream is really a thorny problem.  i try to reconcile it over and over but i can't.  it's so painful b/c of all the talented long term core devs and commiters participating.  i know that while i might be the only one objecting now, we as a community will hear this objection loud and clear later by traditional financial competitors.

the Fed analogy is pretty darn close as an illustration:  if 40% of Fed governors + key management personnel announced tomorrow that they were going to form Fedstream a for-profit corporation to capitalize on their soon to be implemented new negative interest rate scheme here in the US, i suggest we all would scream bloody murder and demand that they all step down out of conflict of interest.

Blockstream is really a thorny problem.  i try to reconcile it over and over but i can't.  it's so painful b/c of all the talented long term core devs and commiters participating.  i know that while i might be the only one objecting now, we as a community will hear this objection loud and clear later by traditional financial competitors.

the Fed analogy is pretty darn close as an illustration:  if 40% of Fed governors + key management personnel announced tomorrow that they were going to form Fedstream a for-profit corporation to capitalize on their soon to be implemented new negative interest rate scheme here in the US, i suggest we all would scream bloody murder and demand that they all step down out of conflict of interest.

wow, after 200 pgs we have an agreement.

i would love to see SC's fulfill their primary goal; that of innovating Bitcoin esp for fast tx and anonymity.  i just fear the unknown secondary effects, one being the perverse strengthening of altcoins via the bolt on.

how do you propose to assess the efficacy/success of these utility chains over time?

so you understand my argument about why the vast majority of altcoins will bolt on to Bitcoin MC utilizing the 2wp and how it might be a bigger threat than it already is to Bitcoin in the long run?