it's starting already.
Truthcoin, enabled by SC's!
http://www.truthcoin.info/
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 752. (Read 2032266 times)
spv proof
I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)
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.
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"
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.
spv proof
I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)
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.
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"
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?
Not, ... 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.
spv proof
I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)
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.
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"
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?
spv proof
I can tell you only what is in whitepaper. (crystal clear)
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.
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"
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.
How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?
Example:
Simplified version of exchange.
1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
- it can be implemented as central authority server b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
- merger can only pair bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.
2. now I can create 2-way-peg (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
- I can deposit asset into Merger
- I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
- Merger can be easy audited
3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.
But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof
It is too complicated to explain. ( 20 pages of pdf ).
2wp can be replaced anytime (I mean switching from Federated Humans to SNARK scheme)
For the begging let's use 5 federated human judges who can use brain and can check trades. (ticker log)
You didn't answer me
"isn't this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?"
Maybe but you can't explain in less than 20 pages of pdf why we should prefer that system or if it's even safe or efficient. Are current wn wallets or exchanges getting safer? Maybe.
How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?
Example:
Simplified version of exchange.
1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
- it can be implemented as central authority server b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
- merger can only pair bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.
2. now I can create 2-way-peg (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
- I can deposit asset into Merger
- I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
- Merger can be easy audited
3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.
But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof
It is too complicated to explain. ( 20 pages of pdf ).
2wp can be replaced anytime (I mean switching from Federated Humans to SNARK scheme)
For the begging let's use 5 federated human judges who can use brain and can check trades. (ticker log)
You didn't answer me
"isn't this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?"
How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?
Example:
Simplified version of exchange.
1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
- it can be implemented as central authority server b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
- merger can only pair bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.
2. now I can create 2-way-peg (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
- I can deposit asset into Merger
- I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
- Merger can be easy audited
3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.
But that'ssa centralized system which we've already agreed is not ideal. I more interested in how this works on the SC via spv proof
How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?
Example:
Simplified version of exchange.
1. I can create bid/ask Merger as SC.
- it can be implemented as central authority server b/c it cannot move coins (I'll remove feature send coins from this mergerSC)
- merger can only pair bids and asks (new featue I'll add) => Merger will create proof (Merger creates signature that he found signed bid by A that match signed ask by B) => in fact merger mines blockchain as list of trades.
2. now I can create 2-way-peg (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol)
- I can deposit asset into Merger
- I can withdraw asset from Merger because I can create proof from merger-blockchain.
- Merger can be easy audited
3. Merger feature cannot be implemented on MC b/c it requires to remove feature "send coins" and new blockchain concept.
Edit:
Trying to explain it more.
It will look same as gox (gox will have goxBTC not real bitcoins)
I'll use proof of trading and 2wp (Federated Peg, Oracle or by Bitcoin protocol) gives me real bitcoins.
rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case, why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
cypherdoc, isn't this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?
Edit:
Gox even allowed exchange goxBTC between users(if they used address generated by gox). And they traded at https://www.bitcoinbuilder.com/
Uh oh, were starting to recycle the same arguments.
How would ppl trade scBTC with each other?
rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case, why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
cypherdoc, isn't this same as move BTC from MC into exchange orderbook ?
Edit:
Gox even allowed exchange goxBTC between users(if they used address generated by gox). And they traded at https://www.bitcoinbuilder.com/
So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.
lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security, faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.
What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?
lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security, faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.
What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?
owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.
so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?
don't know for sure but you can bet on it.
this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?
GLD buys it and stores it in a vault.
ETF aren't typically 1:1 because there are costs of management and they pay themselves and their legal fees out of the fund.
This is from the Winklevoss ETP s-1 filing with the SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm#tx562329_19
(the "sponsors" are a wholly owned company by the Winklevoss)
Quote
The Sponsor’s Fee will accrue daily and will be payable in kind (in Bitcoins) monthly in arrears. To pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Trust will transfer Bitcoins from the Trust Custody Account to an account maintained by the Trustee for the Sponsor (“Sponsor Custody Account”). The Sponsor, from time to time, may waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee at its discretion for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to continue a waiver after the end of such stated period, and, if such waiver is not continued, the Sponsor’s Fee will thereafter be paid in full. Presently, the Sponsor does not intend to waive any of its fee. The Trustee will from time to time deliver to the Sponsor Custody Account Bitcoins in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of the Sponsor’s Fee. The Trustee may from time to time transfer from the Trust Custody Account and deliver to a segregated account of the Trustee (“Trust Expense Account”) Bitcoins for sale in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. Accordingly, the number of Bitcoins to be transferred and sold will vary from time to time depending on the level of the Trust’s expenses and the Blended Bitcoin Price. See “Business of the Trust—Trust Expenses.”
Each delivery or transfer of Bitcoins by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses will be a taxable event to Shareholders.
Each delivery or transfer of Bitcoins by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses will be a taxable event to Shareholders.
rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case, why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.
OK, that makes sense. But isn't that still the same as Bitcoin in 2009/10/11 where Satoshi and later Gavin had control over commit privileges? The protocol change for sidechains is one time, after that the 5 guys in Blockstream have limited influence.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
the way i understand the github process is that while you may be able to put patches up there freely, nothing can be written to the source code w/o consensus from the core devs themselves. b/c the vast majority of them now work in one company, there is a potential for them to possibly insert what they want and definitely to block what they don't want.
Your understanding of the process is the same as mine.
But again, isn't this the case today? What's different from today. At least with SC's you can implement new features outside of the centralized process we have currently (which I do not like).
JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked. he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily. it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused. they're basically saying "trust us". it's up to you.
If there is strong demand, I don't think they can block SC alternatives. In Linux committers have a lot of control over their pieces, but it's not infinite by any means.
And again Blockstream does not have any control over sidechains where adoption of sidechains guarantees them money in any sort of way. We might find Blockstream has disappeared in a year and the 5 people mentioned above are now advocating for a SC alternative.
I think you bring up an important point which is "is this version of sidechains the best or are there potentially other solutions that are better". The reason this is important is once we have one version implemented, the preference will be to stick with the current version even if something better comes along later. So, we should make sure we implement the right technology first. That's a bigger sticking point for me.
no one is saying there "are" going to be problems, only that there is the potential for problems when it comes down to money. blocking other innovations that might make SC's obsolete in the future could cost Blockstream lucrative contracts; after all, Austin has talked about designing SC's for gvts currencies.
a fundamental principle of Bitcoin as i've understood it is to design systems to be as resilient and trust free as possible. why wouldn't this extend to those ppl who have influence over the source code?
I get that you are only talking about the potential for problems.
I am asking why you think problems related to only a few people having commit privileges is either: 1) new to sidechains or 2) worse with sidechains.
Again, the issue of having to trust a few centralized people with commit privileges is a problem Bitcoin has today and has always had. These maintainers have a variety of conflicting interests today. The potential problem you are ascribing to sidechains is not a problem for sidechains but a problem for Bitcoin. Yes the Bitcoin network is trustless in that you only have to trust the code and math, but Bitcoin still places a great deal of trust in a few people who maintain the code. Everytime you update your wallet version, you are trusting that someone else did not do something dishonest.
Sidechains have the potential to reduce this problem by enabling decentralized implementation of features and not relying on a few people, it actually improves the issue.
a fundamental principle of Bitcoin as i've understood it is to design systems to be as resilient and trust free as possible. why wouldn't this extend to those ppl who have influence over the source code?
Bitcoin today requires significant trust in a few people maintaining the code. For example last month Luke Jr slipped an update to Ubuntu (or was it Debian) that blocked statoshidice and a few similar addresses, and it caused a huge uproar. Many people claimed he tried to force his religious preferences against gambling onto the network (personally I think it was just a non-malicious mistake where his own setting were accidentally moved to the release version), but it demonstrates that the potential for abuse is very real today.
This is an example of Bitcoin today not being trustless, but in fact trusting maintainers.
The issue you are ascribing to sidechains is not a sidechains issue, it is a Bitcoin issue. Unless you can show that the problem is made worse with sidechains, then it's not really a problem for sidechains.
Well see, you haven't really read the last 100 pages or so of this debate, or at least what I've repeatedly said about conflict of interest.
The problem is your starting supposition : something is wrong with Bitcoin and needs to be fixed. That's not my starting point. I don't think something is wrong with Bitcoin and it should be left alone.
Somewhat related to the ongoing debate on the sidechains concept,
this is a good-to-read thread on the bitcoin development mailing list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BBitcoin-development%5D+The+difficulty+of+writing+consensus+critical+code%3A+the+SIGHASH_SINGLE+bug%22
particularly enlightening is this piece from Peter Todd in response to Justus:
You'll find another insight of what's the real complexity of bitcoin
development at the beginning of the aforementioned thread.
Peter is talking about how every node alt-implementation has to
replicate the exact same behaviour of Bitcoin Core in terms of consensus
policies (even bugs if any), otherwise it will be forked off the network.
It is what he calls "bug-for-bug" compatibility. I've found it fascinating.
Another really interesting quote from Peter :
p.s. sorry for being way too OT
this is a good-to-read thread on the bitcoin development mailing list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BBitcoin-development%5D+The+difficulty+of+writing+consensus+critical+code%3A+the+SIGHASH_SINGLE+bug%22
particularly enlightening is this piece from Peter Todd in response to Justus:
Quote from: Peter Todd (emphasis mine)
In the current model, the specification *is* the protocol, and the
Bitcoin Core team is scared to death of changing anything; they've got
very little real power. Soft-forks are the minimum-viable way of making
changes to the protocol, and it's very clear how they get adopted:
minerr consensus. They're also a fundemental way of changing the
protocol that is impossible to prevent, so you might as well use it.
Bitcoin Core team is scared to death of changing anything; they've got
very little real power. Soft-forks are the minimum-viable way of making
changes to the protocol, and it's very clear how they get adopted:
minerr consensus. They're also a fundemental way of changing the
protocol that is impossible to prevent, so you might as well use it.
You'll find another insight of what's the real complexity of bitcoin
development at the beginning of the aforementioned thread.
Peter is talking about how every node alt-implementation has to
replicate the exact same behaviour of Bitcoin Core in terms of consensus
policies (even bugs if any), otherwise it will be forked off the network.
It is what he calls "bug-for-bug" compatibility. I've found it fascinating.
Another really interesting quote from Peter :
Quote from: Peter Todd
You know, the smartest thing the Bitcoin Foundation could do if they
wanted to cement their place in the Bitcoin ecosystem as a power broker
would be to setup a program of periodic hard-forks, say every year or
two, and then manage the committees that decide what goes into those
hard-forks. That they haven't suggested that yet is a sign that they're
either not evil, or they don't understand Bitcoin very well.
wanted to cement their place in the Bitcoin ecosystem as a power broker
would be to setup a program of periodic hard-forks, say every year or
two, and then manage the committees that decide what goes into those
hard-forks. That they haven't suggested that yet is a sign that they're
either not evil, or they don't understand Bitcoin very well.
p.s. sorry for being way too OT
OK, that makes sense. But isn't that still the same as Bitcoin in 2009/10/11 where Satoshi and later Gavin had control over commit privileges? The protocol change for sidechains is one time, after that the 5 guys in Blockstream have limited influence.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
the way i understand the github process is that while you may be able to put patches up there freely, nothing can be written to the source code w/o consensus from the core devs themselves. b/c the vast majority of them now work in one company, there is a potential for them to possibly insert what they want and definitely to block what they don't want.
Your understanding of the process is the same as mine.
But again, isn't this the case today? What's different from today. At least with SC's you can implement new features outside of the centralized process we have currently (which I do not like).
JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked. he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily. it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused. they're basically saying "trust us". it's up to you.
If there is strong demand, I don't think they can block SC alternatives. In Linux committers have a lot of control over their pieces, but it's not infinite by any means.
And again Blockstream does not have any control over sidechains where adoption of sidechains guarantees them money in any sort of way. We might find Blockstream has disappeared in a year and the 5 people mentioned above are now advocating for a SC alternative.
I think you bring up an important point which is "is this version of sidechains the best or are there potentially other solutions that are better". The reason this is important is once we have one version implemented, the preference will be to stick with the current version even if something better comes along later. So, we should make sure we implement the right technology first. That's a bigger sticking point for me.
no one is saying there "are" going to be problems, only that there is the potential for problems when it comes down to money. blocking other innovations that might make SC's obsolete in the future could cost Blockstream lucrative contracts; after all, Austin has talked about designing SC's for gvts currencies.
a fundamental principle of Bitcoin as i've understood it is to design systems to be as resilient and trust free as possible. why wouldn't this extend to those ppl who have influence over the source code?
I get that you are only talking about the potential for problems.
I am asking why you think problems related to only a few people having commit privileges is either: 1) new to sidechains or 2) worse with sidechains.
Again, the issue of having to trust a few centralized people with commit privileges is a problem Bitcoin has today and has always had. These maintainers have a variety of conflicting interests today. The potential problem you are ascribing to sidechains is not a problem for sidechains but a problem for Bitcoin. Yes the Bitcoin network is trustless in that you only have to trust the code and math, but Bitcoin still places a great deal of trust in a few people who maintain the code. Everytime you update your wallet version, you are trusting that someone else did not do something dishonest.
Sidechains have the potential to reduce this problem by enabling decentralized implementation of features and not relying on a few people, it actually improves the issue.
a fundamental principle of Bitcoin as i've understood it is to design systems to be as resilient and trust free as possible. why wouldn't this extend to those ppl who have influence over the source code?
Bitcoin today requires significant trust in a few people maintaining the code. For example last month Luke Jr slipped an update to Ubuntu (or was it Debian) that blocked statoshidice and a few similar addresses, and it caused a huge uproar. Many people claimed he tried to force his religious preferences against gambling onto the network (personally I think it was just a non-malicious mistake where his own setting were accidentally moved to the release version), but it demonstrates that the potential for abuse is very real today.
This is an example of Bitcoin today not being trustless, but in fact trusting maintainers.
The issue you are ascribing to sidechains is not a sidechains issue, it is a Bitcoin issue. Unless you can show that the problem is made worse with sidechains, then it's not really a problem for sidechains.
https://cdn.panteracapital.com/wp-content/uploads/Pantera-Bitcoin-Letter-November-2014-1.pdf
Pantera is very bullish on sidechains
They have nailed it down perfectly. Both sidechains' opportunity and Blockstream's mission.
There needs to be only one true ledger, one blockchain to rule them all. Sidechains enables Bitcoin to truly realize's its promises as the TCP/IP of money. They effectively confirm the layer idea on top of which other decentralized value applications of the future should be built.
Because Bitcoin's chain is the only truly decentralized blockchain in crypto, other attempt at creating similar mechanisms to support different applications was always going to be imperfect. Bitcoin is the only trustable decentralized value transmission protocol.
Blockstream is trying to build the main applications that will be used on top of this protocol
+1
Pantera is very bullish on sidechains
Quote
The most promising aspect of sidechains is that they can support decentralization of anything that couldn’t previously be decentralized because of limitations of the Bitcoin protocol.
They have nailed it down perfectly. Both sidechains' opportunity and Blockstream's mission.
There needs to be only one true ledger, one blockchain to rule them all. Sidechains enables Bitcoin to truly realize's its promises as the TCP/IP of money. They effectively confirm the layer idea on top of which other decentralized value applications of the future should be built.
Because Bitcoin's chain is the only truly decentralized blockchain in crypto, other attempt at creating similar mechanisms to support different applications was always going to be imperfect. Bitcoin is the only trustable decentralized value transmission protocol.
Blockstream is trying to build the main applications that will be used on top of this protocol
Quote
Sidechains are a major step forward in the Bitcoin network effects sequence. They are one of Bitcoin’s network effects, in that they are the product of developers attracted to Bitcoin and inspired to build on its technology. At the same time, sidechains cause further Bitcoin network effects by enabling unimaginable and facilitating theoretically difficult sidechain-based applications. We are curious to see how sidechains will exponentiate Bitcoin’s disruptive force in the next few years.
+1
I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?
GLD is an exchange traded fund without any leverage. Some allege they do not have full backing but outside of a conspiracy theory I think we can assume they do keep the gold they are supposed to.
One idea is they buy the gold but then lease it out to market, this is similar to stock short sales. For a fee you can borrow stock from long term holders, sell it and then buy it back later. If the stock falls in price, it can be very profitable. I guess gold leasing works in a similar way, I know european banks were leasing gold some time ago but Im not sure now. So that is leverage, but its not fraud as it must all be reversed eventually.
The big fuss on derivatives for gold or anything is not needed as most contracts may circulate in market at a price but expire with no action taken, one side collects a small premium for giving an option to buy which seems alot like insurance to me; only a potential liability. Still theres maybe alot of tricks done by people desperate to make gold price fall.
China is the biggest influence as they fail to report their accumulation of gold and they are the worlds largest miner I have read; this allows them to buy gold from the west more cheaply. So Im stating the opposite, there are more gold sales then reported and it is not circulated but China is transacting and storing gold
OK, that makes sense. But isn't that still the same as Bitcoin in 2009/10/11 where Satoshi and later Gavin had control over commit privileges? The protocol change for sidechains is one time, after that the 5 guys in Blockstream have limited influence.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.
It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.
It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.
And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
the way i understand the github process is that while you may be able to put patches up there freely, nothing can be written to the source code w/o consensus from the core devs themselves. b/c the vast majority of them now work in one company, there is a potential for them to possibly insert what they want and definitely to block what they don't want.
Your understanding of the process is the same as mine.
But again, isn't this the case today? What's different from today. At least with SC's you can implement new features outside of the centralized process we have currently (which I do not like).
JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked. he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily. it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused. they're basically saying "trust us". it's up to you.
If there is strong demand, I don't think they can block SC alternatives. In Linux committers have a lot of control over their pieces, but it's not infinite by any means.
And again Blockstream does not have any control over sidechains where adoption of sidechains guarantees them money in any sort of way. We might find Blockstream has disappeared in a year and the 5 people mentioned above are now advocating for a SC alternative.
I think you bring up an important point which is "is this version of sidechains the best or are there potentially other solutions that are better". The reason this is important is once we have one version implemented, the preference will be to stick with the current version even if something better comes along later. So, we should make sure we implement the right technology first. That's a bigger sticking point for me.
no one is saying there "are" going to be problems, only that there is the potential for problems when it comes down to money. blocking other innovations that might make SC's obsolete in the future could cost Blockstream lucrative contracts; after all, Austin has talked about designing SC's for gvts currencies.
a fundamental principle of Bitcoin as i've understood it is to design systems to be as resilient and trust free as possible. why wouldn't this extend to those ppl who have influence over the source code?
the way i understand the github process is that while you may be able to put patches up there freely, nothing can be written to the source code w/o consensus from the core devs themselves. b/c the vast majority of them now work in one company, there is a potential for them to possibly insert what they want and definitely to block what they don't want.
JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked. he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily. it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused. they're basically saying "trust us". it's up to you.
JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked. he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily. it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused. they're basically saying "trust us". it's up to you.
this part is not true. 2 out of 5 is not the majority. Only Greg & Peter are at Blockstream and can write to the source code
i went back to a quote from gmax:
Blockstream's cofounders include 2 of 5 of the people with commit access to the bitcoin core github repo. Or, if you count people with non-trivial contributions to Bitcoin we have 5 people out of hundreds.
commit access is not technical problem. => it is about "this 5 people did verify the new code"
you can clone github repo and anybody can commit => it is about trust who will trust in this commits
Jump to: