Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 749.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: smooth on November 07, 2014, 05:31:48 PM

That is breaking the link.

They are taking the Bitcoin brand and applying it to their (and others' but I think they are more concerned with theirs) sidechain coin, which is not Bitcoin but is another coin backed by Bitcoin held in reserve.

If Bitcoin were a defended trademark this appropriation would likely not be allowed. As a practical factual matter it is also untrue. The actual Bitcoin do not and can not leave the Bitcoin blockchain.

They may get away with it though, because as others have pointed out here, the Bitcoin-the-currency/Bitcoin-the-blockchain meme is popular and spreading.

Hmm I hope you realise the contradiction in your comment here : if the "actual Bitcoin do not and can not leave the Bitcoin blockchain" then no "that is *not* breaking the link.

I do understand your argument though and I don't see any malicious intent in the marketing of their scheme as "Bitcoin moving across" chain. It is simply easier for everyone to understand and if the math are properly implemented making the algorithmic peg safe & sound then while it may be true it is not the actual Bitcoin that is moved to the sidechain, its representing unit is as close to bitcoin as anything can be.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 11:13:40 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 07, 2014, 11:10:25 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 11:01:47 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 07, 2014, 10:45:50 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 10:37:50 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 07, 2014, 10:31:06 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 10:17:57 AM

Quote from: Odalv on November 07, 2014, 10:12:42 AM

spv proof

I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)

Quote

"We observe that Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (or DMMS ),
which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature"

This new signature can be verified by Bitcoin ... or for begging oracle can verify DMMS and if is valid then oracle will sign Bitcoin multi-signature transaction.

yes, but that's for getting BTC--->scBTC. how does scBTC get exchanged while on SC other than simply by localtrading p2p w/o centralizing it?

No oracle is on SC and oracle check SC.
It is same chain as Bitcoin
It know longest SC b/c it is same as every bitcoin client can verify

and is unlocking bitcoins in MC by signing bitcoin transaction in MC.

?

maybe i can answer my own question. once someone holds scBTC, they can transact just like they would with BTC except being able to take advantage of faster tx and anonymity be it online or p2p. my question is that these same scBTC can be traded with other scBTC holders. i suppose that could be p2p as well but if done on a centralized exchange that doesn't advance our anonymity desires. which is what i was getting at to address your question about how a SC may or may not be analogous to mtgox.

Now this new SC is same as original Bitcoin + has native support for new signatures (SPV, SNARK ...) -> new version of bitcoin.
Now inside this SC, it is possible to create new SCs (eg fastWallet, exchanges, ...)

you don't mean another second SC for fastWallet and exchanges, do you? b/c i would consider that a disadvantage as that would mean BTC would have to traverse 2 separate SPV proofs with contest/confirmation periods in order to get to 2nd SC which would increase risk of escaping SC's in general in an emergency due to time delays and technical failures.

i would hope fastWallet exchanges would be decentralized and anonymous and exist on the 1st SC away from Bitcoin.

I think I'll not need create more oracles inside SC b/c bitcoinSC may support it. I'm not sure. I have to go for now.

i sure love your imagination with these things. it's so much more imaginative and mind expanding than some others around here.

i agree with you. there are going to be billions of these things!

Thank you. (I'm not owner/creator of SC idea)
I like SC idea .. I'm glad if my explanation can help.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 05:33:07 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 07, 2014, 05:12:04 PM

If the notion is that: "Side Chains are great because people more foolish than I am will mistakenly trust some bad ones, and use them, and lose some of their coins making mine more valuable."
Than this isn't particularly good for Bitcoin if people lose confidence in it, so whether it may or may not be good for one's own bitcoin value is questionable.

Here is one scenario where BTCs may be lost to MC in this way, essentially rendered unspendable through an economic activity.

1) Some BTC is SPV'd to scBTC₁.
2) Some scBTC₁ is SPV'd to scBTC₂.
3) scBTC₁ is discovered to be a scam (or just a bad implementation) whereas scBTC₁coin massively inflates so that no one on scBTC₂ has any incentive to SPV back from scBTC₂ to scBTC₁ and so no way to return to MC.

(Yes, you can create a side chain from a side chain.)
complexity risks...

Edit: Is there a way to have such an event without sidechains, or is this a "new" risk?

well essentially you're suggesting the coins were initially transferred to a non-secure scheme without proper due diligence from the owner so my answer is no, this is not a "new" risk.

Can you help me understand how do we do this without the side chains?
For example, using an alt coin does something quite different:
If I sell bitcoin for an alt coin which turns out to be a long con scam, but before the scam was sprung, I had traded them to a different alt coin, I could still trade that second alt coin for BTC, and the BTC I initially traded away are not essentially "burned" they are still being exchanged on MC by whomever got them from me.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 07, 2014, 05:12:04 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme?

If the notion is that: "Side Chains are great because people more foolish than I am will mistakenly trust some bad ones, and use them, and lose some of their coins making mine more valuable."
Than this isn't particularly good for Bitcoin if people lose confidence in it, so whether it may or may not be good for one's own bitcoin value is questionable.

Here is one scenario where BTCs may be lost to MC in this way, essentially rendered unspendable through an economic activity.

1) Some BTC is SPV'd to scBTC₁.
2) Some scBTC₁ is SPV'd to scBTC₂.
3) scBTC₁ is discovered to be a scam (or just a bad implementation) whereas scBTC₁coin massively inflates so that no one on scBTC₂ has any incentive to SPV back from scBTC₂ to scBTC₁ and so no way to return to MC.

(Yes, you can create a side chain from a side chain.)
complexity risks...

Edit: Is there a way to have such an event without sidechains, or is this a "new" risk?

well essentially you're suggesting the coins were initially transferred to a non-secure scheme without proper due diligence from the owner so my answer is no, this is not a "new" risk.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sickpig on November 07, 2014, 05:11:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 01:31:51 PM

I would feel far more comfortable if over the next 2 years we cleaned up the code we had, commenting it, and reconciling it with projects like btcd addressing the bug for bug issues that propagate over time. before introducing more financial complexity. I empathize with the community as a whole to add features they think will increase their investment, however, i would rather see the code base fare more secure - and a stable foundation before adding new dependencies.

Wladimir van der Laan, the new Bitcoin Core lead dev, on the same thread linked
above said that they are working on separating the consensus code from all the rest.
The first step will be a script verification library to be first introduced in 0.10 and
extended to other parts of consensus code by 0.11

So I think that the direction the project is moving toward is the one you aimed,
having "stable foundation" to build things on top.

Music to my ears. They should take as much time as possible to perfect each step. before adding to the code base.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 05:05:05 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on November 07, 2014, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?

The "breaking the link" is pure marketing. You may be right that it is harmful marketing try to promote the idea of breaking that link. I consider it deceptive at best.

BTC-the-currency still has all 21 million on the main chain with or without sidechains. Some may be locked, some lost, some not yet mined, but they never go anywhere. They are on the main chain ever and always.

If you've read every post here Justice nailed it with this post.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9448208

I don't for a second believe Austin Hill thinks like you do.

Never has it been said anywhere that the link between the blockchain and BTC should be broken.

What Blockstream, and Adam Hill, are proposing is to allow the BTC to move between subchains and not be restricted to Bitcoin's blockchain features.

That is breaking the link.

They are taking the Bitcoin brand and applying it to their (and others' but I think they are more concerned with theirs) sidechain coin, which is not Bitcoin but is another coin backed by Bitcoin held in reserve.

If Bitcoin were a defended trademark this appropriation would likely not be allowed. As a practical factual matter it is also untrue. The actual Bitcoin do not and can not leave the Bitcoin blockchain.

They may get away with it though, because as others have pointed out here, the Bitcoin-the-currency/Bitcoin-the-blockchain meme is popular and spreading.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 05:05:05 PM

Never has it been said anywhere that the link between the blockchain and BTC should be broken.

What Blockstream, and Adam Hill, are proposing is to allow the BTC to move between subchains and not be restricted to Bitcoin's blockchain features.

In the end, the BTC locked on a sidechain is still accounted for on the mainchain, as rocks has discussed.

I don't think you understand what I've beet talking about and why SideChains are interesting to financial asset management companies.

Bitcoin the private key has no value, securing it in a SC doesn't secure value stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, (just like securing my keys on an offline computer can't secure the value in the blockchain) only now it could be allowed to freely move into the SideChain. This is new this is a big change, this changes how I see Bitcoin, there are pros and cons, I'm not interested in understand the pros I have a lifetime to explore those I want to understand the cons.

And your not helping.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 05:05:05 PM

What Blockstream, and Adam Hill, are proposing is to allow the BTC to move between subchains and not be restricted to Bitcoin's blockchain features.

this is conceptually how i view SC's. to me, the 2wp is just a pass thru with hopefully solid math to allow scBTC to return to MC.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme?

If the notion is that: "Side Chains are great because people more foolish than I am will mistakenly trust some bad ones, and use them, and lose some of their coins making mine more valuable."
Than this isn't particularly good for Bitcoin if people lose confidence in it, so whether it may or may not be good for one's own bitcoin value is questionable.

Here is one scenario where BTCs may be lost to MC in this way, essentially rendered unspendable through an economic activity.

1) Some BTC is SPV'd to scBTC₁.
2) Some scBTC₁ is SPV'd to scBTC₂.
3) scBTC₁ is discovered to be a scam (or just a bad implementation) whereas scBTC₁coin massively inflates so that no one on scBTC₂ has any incentive to SPV back from scBTC₂ to scBTC₁ and so no way to return to MC.

(Yes, you can create a side chain from a side chain.)
complexity risks...

Edit: Is there a way to have such an event without sidechains, or is this a "new" risk?

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 01:31:51 PM

I would feel far more comfortable if over the next 2 years we cleaned up the code we had, commenting it, and reconciling it with projects like btcd addressing the bug for bug issues that propagate over time. before introducing more financial complexity. I empathize with the community as a whole to add features they think will increase their investment, however, i would rather see the code base fare more secure - and a stable foundation before adding new dependencies.

Wladimir van der Laan, the new Bitcoin Core lead dev, on the same thread linked
above said that they are working on separating the consensus code from all the rest.
The first step will be a script verification library to be first introduced in 0.10 and
extended to other parts of consensus code by 0.11

So I think that the direction the project is moving toward is the one you aimed,
having "stable foundation" to build things on top.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 04:53:19 PM

Quote from: smooth on November 07, 2014, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?

The "breaking the link" is pure marketing. You may be right that it is harmful marketing try to promote the idea of breaking that link. I consider it deceptive at best.

BTC-the-currency still has all 21 million on the main chain with or without sidechains. Some may be locked, some lost, some not yet mined, but they never go anywhere. They are on the main chain ever and always.

If you've read every post here Justice nailed it with this post.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9448208

I don't for a second believe Austin Hill thinks like you do.

Never has it been said anywhere that the link between the blockchain and BTC should be broken.

What Blockstream, and Adam Hill, are proposing is to allow the BTC to move between subchains and not be restricted to Bitcoin's blockchain features.

In the end, the BTC locked on a sidechain is still accounted for on the mainchain, as rocks has discussed.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:43:07 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme?

if you believe Odalv, there are going to be billions of these federated server models of private community SC's doing their thing w/o MM. that's where problems could arise.

In my mind those are the non threatening applications. They are already materializing and will come to dominate with or without the this SC proposed protocol change.

It's the MM decentralized verily that pose a threat to the Bitcoin incentive structure. That combination is why I tread with cation.

And BlockStream should do a pier reviewed economic study.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smooth on November 07, 2014, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?

The "breaking the link" is pure marketing. You may be right that it is harmful marketing try to promote the idea of breaking that link. I consider it deceptive at best.

BTC-the-currency still has all 21 million on the main chain with or without sidechains. Some may be locked, some lost, some not yet mined, but they never go anywhere. They are on the main chain ever and always.

If you've read every post here Justice nailed it with this post.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9448208

I don't for a second believe Austin Hill thinks like you do.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Melbustus on November 07, 2014, 04:05:23 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 04:00:06 PM

Quote from: Melbustus on November 07, 2014, 03:49:21 PM

I've been busy for the past week or so. Did I miss anything?

Lol over a ~~100~~ 200 pages, and a few unsubstantiated and substantiated accusations.

Well, I've read every post of this thread (and the one before it) except for the last few days, so I suppose I have some reading to do tonight.

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 07, 2014, 04:00:06 PM

And a conclusion that it would be wise to considered SideChains could come with some risks. Cheesy

Isn't that obvious?

One would think but it seems they've all been mitigated and it's possible one is ignorant if one doesn't see it.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme?

if you believe Odalv, there are going to be billions of these federated server models of private community SC's doing their thing w/o MM. that's where problems could arise.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

OK, so you're saying that the media and public view would be that "Bitcoin failed!!!" if a sidechain went down, and that would damage the ecosystem.

Yes, I agree a lot of people would do so and interpret it this way. I think these would be the same people who say Bitcoin is a scam today. I think smart people would separate that Sidecoin A went down but Bitcoin is fine.

But I think the best answer is brg444's earlier comment that no sidechain will get large enough to cause a big public blowup unless it itself is as strong at Bitcoin. If sidechain A has 50% of BTC as your example, I'd be just as confident in it as the current Bitcoin mainchain.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:19:53 PM

i think the true answer is, "it's impossible to know". a loss of that magnitude would wipe out alot of Bitcoin's most ardent supporters, eliminate the perception of SOV, and could set the community back 100 yrs. in that sense, the BTC price could tank. i know i wouldn't trust crypto devs anymore in my lifetime if i lost scBTC from that scenario. or, yes, it could "make all our BTC more valuable!" that's certainly the conventional thinking around here.

the difference with your gold example is that i doubt the Chinese had any idea a Spanish armada ship laden with gold went to the bottom of the Atlantic. today, we have the internet and the media would be all over it.

that's a fair statement but again, how does sidechain increase the risks of BTCs being lost to centralized, malicious or corrupted scheme?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 04:30:49 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

doesn't that support NL's and my argument that these SC's ledgers are, in fact, different than Bitcoins blockchain? so different that they could range from complete scams with centralization and no MM all the way to complete legit SC's that are 100% MM and no sidecoins? if you buy that then SC's are in fact NOT extensions of the Bitcoin blockchain and are NOT the same ledger. they are just some amorphous bunch of ledgers/blockchains for anything from complete speculation to complete legitimacy. and then in that same sense, do you not understand my concern of breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?

Yes sidechains could be anything from legit coins to complete scams, but why does that matter?

I think the question is whether or not sidechains need to be honest and help secure the economic cap. If sidechains are needed to secure the ledger and secure the cap, then yes we have a disaster in the making because by definition sidechains can be anything (as you pointed out) and can't be relied on.

But I don't believe that is the case. I believe the core protection mechanism is still the bitcoin mainchain which tracks where all 21M coins are. Sidechains that are scams will experience bank runs because the Bitcoin mainchain is where honesty and security is enforced. That was the point of my example in the previous page where some sidechain created millions of dishonest scBTC, the bitcoin mainchain would expose the scam/fraud.

Bitcoin is the reserve asset. Reserve assets don't prevent fraud, but force fraud it to eventually come to public light. I trust bitcoin to enforce correctness in sidechains by functioning as a reserve asset to sidechains, I don't trust any sidechains to do so.

that's a pretty good answer rocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:27:33 PM

not to some around here. didn't you get the memo? SC's can only make the BTC price go up, be they scam or legit.

do you want us to revisit some of your doomsday scenario made in the first couple of pages of this discussion.

your amount of backpedalling has been quite impressive and obvious to anyone following since the beginning.

the argument was not that there weren't any risks. it was that those you were coming up with were completely farfetched and improbable

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 04:11:40 PM

doesn't that support NL's and my argument that these SC's ledgers are, in fact, different than Bitcoins blockchain? so different that they could range from complete scams with centralization and no MM all the way to complete legit SC's that are 100% MM and no sidecoins? if you buy that then SC's are in fact NOT extensions of the Bitcoin blockchain and are NOT the same ledger. they are just some amorphous bunch of ledgers/blockchains for anything from complete speculation to complete legitimacy. and then in that same sense, do you not understand my concern of breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?

Yes sidechains could be anything from legit coins to complete scams, but why does that matter?

I think the question is whether or not sidechains need to be honest and help secure the economic cap. If sidechains are needed to secure the ledger and secure the cap, then yes we have a disaster in the making because by definition sidechains can be anything (as you pointed out) and can't be relied on.

But I don't believe that is the case. I believe the core protection mechanism is still the bitcoin mainchain which tracks where all 21M coins are. Sidechains that are scams will experience bank runs because the Bitcoin mainchain is where honesty and security is enforced. That was the point of my example in the previous page where some sidechain created millions of dishonest scBTC, the bitcoin mainchain would expose the scam/fraud.

Bitcoin is the reserve asset. Reserve assets don't prevent fraud, but force fraud it to eventually come to public light. I trust bitcoin to enforce correctness in sidechains by functioning as a reserve asset to sidechains, I don't trust any sidechains to do so.

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 749. (Read 2032266 times)