Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 755. (Read 2032266 times)

I think there is possible to create very interesting Federated 2wp (using oracles, automated auditors, and human judges).
So if there is fraud attempt detected , more conflicting SPV proofs or  incosistency in side-blockchain. Then human judges are required.

So even service like Gox can be used safe . :-)
Maybe Federated peg is even better than only bitcoin protocol peg. Currently I do not know SC where I want keep BTCs for decade.

Now these are reasonable, sensible remarks that do not rely on hyperbole scenarios and generally address the situation in a non-biased manner. Thank you.

While there are some issues presented that I don't see as a problem, some definitely merit attention. Of course, due diligence on the part of the user is always one of the main concern but while sidechains might introduce new forms of scams, I will continue to say that fools, no matter the mechanism, will find a way to part with their money.

So locktime is needed.

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

I'm afraid this is the source of the problem. There are only so many highly qualified crypto-developers out there who are willing to work on Bitcoin projects. We should expect to have more in the future but meanwhile a project requiring industry experts only have so many candidates to pick from.

Not really worth commenting, but:

The ruble is not free floating if the masters of the russians ban circulation of dollars.

Bitcoin can not be used as a mass value exodus from russia unless there are sufficient supply of bitcoins from other russians, in a regime with currency controls.

Good point.
I'd likely have put that in the confidence category.  The conflict of interest is a bit tragic.  
I am hopeful that it would get resolved sooner rather than later.
It is sort of a weird one.  Its like some operating system team members are leaving to go work on "InstallShield" (remember that?).

Historically, in security software development, the installer is the principle place to introduce vulnerabilities.  Owning the installer is a privileged position as it is the engine of feature distribution, and the closest persistent connection to "the customer".  So I am kind of glad that it is these guys doing it.  But they shouldn't be doing both.

I'm not an insider there and don't know the technology perimeter of their company.
I just really wish that there were more folks doing what they do so that we didn't have to suffer through these sort of conflicts.

lol.  what a crack up.  ready for launch:

https://finance.yahoo.com/tumblr/blog-rouble-collpase-could-fuel-next-bitcion-run-153153403.html?.tsrc=applewf

Can atomic transfers between two coins (say bitcoin and litecoin) work now, without changing any of the two systems?

link?  wow, that looks like that Chinese mine with huge fans in opposite walls?

don't forget that Blockstream is a risk as well.

I am not an SC opponent, but I say with Buffet: It's a mirage. They will not take off.

Edit: I am opposed to changing bitcoin in any way to enable the sidechains.

here's Luke talking about demurrage again:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9457379

did you see this: over $3.6M in hardware, one of the risks of centralized mining, the guy was consuming 5.5MW of power and only had 2 security grads. 

I don't know that there are any SC opponents in this thread.
I also don't claim there are any weaknesses in the SPV mechanism, and find it weird that you would see that anywhere in anything I wrote.  
I like SC's, I think it works and does pretty much what it says it does is the blockstream white paper.

There are however risks, some of which have been discussed here already.  Most of the more interesting risks fall into two main categories.
1) Economic risks (changes to miner incentives, centralization issues, and practical concerns, ZB's is one of these)
2) Confidence risks (both "cons" in the scam sense, and misplaced confidence in the mechanism as a panacea, or else misplaced confidence in any particular SC - what you call the altcoin risk, and loss of confidence in Bitcoin generally due to its new ease of change).

As mentioned upthread, the SC mods present a new upgrade path.  Introducing upgrade paths is something to do carefully, and I like that there is this discussion to work through some of the more obvious issues.


There are all sorts of dystopian varieties of these two categories.
Some may imagine a distant future where with a click of a button (or it is done automatically) where one upgrades their bitcoins from Bitcoin 17.4 to 17.5 moving to yet another new chain, and something goes horribly wrong and they find themselves on Central Banker Inflation Coin of something.
Or what is more likely historically, they do this willfully because the news is telling them that it is necessary to do it for their survival in the new important war of the day.

Edit: there is a 3rd category of risk, technical risks (of which SPV brokenness would be an example, but these haven't been much discussed here).

Thanks for distilling the concern.

not having examined the mechanism and trusting it does what it says on the box I see the positives as you do, but with 1 exception, a side-blockchain crypto this presents some concerns that haven't been effectively analised, thinking side-blockchain crypto will be as effective as Altcoins today is an unbaked projection.  

I't would be great the have some economic studies done on these effects, Bitcoin is as much an economic prototypical as it is a computer algorithm.  

I also think they are for the better, when done successfully and by people of good will.

In much the same way that a software "upgrade" is not always better than its predecessor.  It may require more resource or implement a nasty form or DRM or who knows what.  

Usually they are better, but not always.

What SC does is a great thing.  I have strongly advocated them myself to both developers and investors.  I don't like is seeing them misrepresented as something they aren't.  It is mostly a method of "upgrading" a crypto currency.  Some but not all upgrades are beneficial, only most of them are.

The really insanely great thing about them is that they deal with the ossification issue in a market sensitive way.  If you like the old version and don't want the "upgrade" you don't have to take it.  Or you can try it out for a while and move back without much cost.

I'm sorry, there's just no way I can follow this discussion. I roughly know what sidechains are and how they work, but I'm low on time so please can you (or someone else) explain why/how SCs can inflate Bitcoin (or somehow make Bitcoin "unsound")?

FTFU Caution and contemplative I’m not seeking confrontation just understanding, accusing me of lack of understanding while ignoring the issue is pejorative.