edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
Give me 7 good programmers and $600,000,000 and this proposed change to the Bitcoin protocol and I'll be close to guaranteeing this outcome if I am wrong sell scBTC -> BTC extract fiat.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 786. (Read 2032266 times)
edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
Give me 7 good programmers and $600,000,000 and this proposed change to the Bitcoin protocol and I'll be close to guaranteeing this outcome if I am wrong sell scBTC -> BTC extract fiat.
@cypherdoc
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
[/quote
exactly.
- you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
- then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
- and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg
@cypherdoc
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
exactly.
Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin. With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done. it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.
once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked. those scBTC will be less valued straight away. as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.
we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X. he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive. yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper. see chart i posted above. it's quite probable dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.
Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin. With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
Quote
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.
Reverse is true if you find at least one fool who will sell you scBTC for cheap. b/c He can convert to BTC themself. :-)
Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin. With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
Quote
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.
Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin. With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.
How many do you need to repeat this.
symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)
1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1
edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
ohh 777 i like it 
edit: BTW: The Best And Worst Performing Assets In The Most Volatile Month In Years
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/here-are-best-and-worst-performing-assets-most-volatile-month-years
edit: BTW: The Best And Worst Performing Assets In The Most Volatile Month In Years
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/here-are-best-and-worst-performing-assets-most-volatile-month-years
@cypherdoc
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
No. scBTC is interchangeable with other scBTC.
Clearing system in SC's is meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may never return to MC.
If you have 3 BTC in SC1 and 5 BTC in SC2 then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.
btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
right. but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate. once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever. meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's. these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges. nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system. they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.
right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)
Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin. With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.
@cypherdoc
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
No.
Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.
wow, listen up everyone! SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up! never down!
this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job.
according to wikipedia Steve Jobs was 20 something when he founded Apple inc., just saying.
Ad hominem criticisms are always pernicious imho.
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
No. scBTC is interchangeable with other scBTC.
Clearing system in SC's is meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may never return to MC.
If you have 3 BTC in SC1 and 5 BTC in SC2 then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.
btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
right. but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate. once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever. meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's. these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges. nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system. they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.
right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)
Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP
why would price do this?
People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up
ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down?
No.
Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.
wow, listen up everyone! SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up! never down!
this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job.
otoh, please explain to all of us in detail how SC's, real or scam, can only make the BTC price go up?
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
No. scBTC is interchangeable with other scBTC.
Clearing system in SC's is meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may never return to MC.
If you have 3 BTC in SC1 and 5 BTC in SC2 then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.
btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
right. but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate. once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever. meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's. these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges. nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system. they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
No. scBTC is interchangeable with other scBTC.
Clearing system in SC's is meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may never return to MC.
If you have 3 BTC in SC1 and 5 BTC in SC2 then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.
btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
No. scBTC is interchangeable with other scBTC.
Clearing system in SC's is meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may never return to MC.
MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.
this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.
but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
b) 1 pool for MM SC2
c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
d) 1 pool for NO MM
not sure how that helps. as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM. since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools. that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.
Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.
currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%. let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC. well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack. see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx
>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM
As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)
It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.
and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.
Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
My contribution to the Side Chain discussion Pegged vs. Proof of Burn and why they are two sides of the same Side Chain coin (pun not intended).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9419689
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9419689
Maybe you mean there should not necessarily be a peg? Sure, but then it becomes just another altcoin.
There simply is no peg.
The SC contains bitcoin.
This is not a peg, it is a conveyance.
These are different things, and you ought not confuse people by equating them. It runs counter to your goals.
Not true.
The unit used in the SC is technically not the BTC.
The BTC is not moving around the sidechain, the scBTC unit it represents is.
You don't like the word conveyance. OK
BTC don't really "move" either, you like the word "represent".
The point is the same though. It isn't a peg.
And...that's a good thing for SCs.
I like conveyance better than represent, because the scBTC does more than represent BTC, it wraps the currency in a different block chain with different characteristics. Like putting it in an envelope for more privacy, or to a fast block chain, or to use BTC as the "backing" for a special purpose currency (like a redemption value in a store issued coupon that is worth more BTC if the SC is spent in that store before the expiration date, and after is worth only the BTC value by redeeming it back to the Bitcoin block chain).
The BTC<->scBTC trades will have to gain value to someone in BOTH directions or they just won't happen. Someone would have to have a reason to move to a SC. And then they (or someone) would have to have a reason to move back to BTC. These may not be the same reasons as illustrated above.
Jump to: