I don't doubt that side chains offer some exciting possibilities. But I am still not sure this is the right thing for bitcoin. Perhaps this if implemented into bitcoin core it will herald the end of the alt's in the future and a proliferation of side chains offering discrete services, all fully or partially backed by bitcoin.
I am not against the idea overall. But these new chains are really just alt coins initially backed to some degree by bitcoin. Perhaps that is the leverage the bitcoin 2.0 coins need to succeed in correcting some of the (perceived or real) deficiencies in bitcoin right now. Perhaps we need a static reliable bitcoin blockchain to act as a store of value, in essence like a digital gold reservoir which backs future alt digital currencies. However I suspect this is likely to be wishful thinking. I say alt currencies because these alt chains will not run on the bitcoin chain or protocol, but will simply be linked to it by this 'two way peg' system. If the last five years has shown anything, it is that 'there can be only one' is true really with bitcoin market cap being gigantic and all the rest of the alts being a tiny afterthought.
With each alt side chain presumably there will be an IPO type event where a portion of btc coins go into a black hole of being 'locked'. This will dwindle available supply of btc and instead of being sold off on exchange (ethereum) and depressing the price could actually support it. If lots of popular side chains exist the actual use of bitcoin could become reduced or even minimal. What will keep bitcoin from losing it's value? Nothing I suspect.
What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown. Will bitcoin value suddenly evaporate as all the coins sublime into the new chain in a mad rush? One can imagine some amazing pump and dump opportunities for clever side chain developers to acquire an awful lot of bitcoins through this 'two way peg' mechanism. (Early adopters again wahey!) Or to actually kill bitcoin with if a superior chain emerges.
What happens when a side chain is insecure and is 51%'d if decentralised or is simply hacked if centralised. It isn't hard to imagine a massive gox style disaster with hundreds of thousands of coins getting stolen or lost?
Interesting times.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 843. (Read 2032266 times)
not sure where you're going with this.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
you're missing the overall pt. it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage. first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain. then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain. the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof. the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.
anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here. the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.
You cannot incorporate some features in main chain. Sometimes we need something hard as diamond and sometime soft as a toilet paper.
not sure where you're going with this.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
you're missing the overall pt. it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage. first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain. then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain. the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof. the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.
anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here. the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.
Why is this a problem if the code is all open source? So long as the community can vet a change far before it becomes adopted into core, I see no issue with this. It would take an evil genius on steroids to pull off a trojan horse in this community of tin foil paranoid freaks (I say that in the most lovingly way possible!).
not sure where you're going with this.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
you're missing the overall pt. it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage. first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain. then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain. the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof. the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.
anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here. the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.
trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
I hear alarm bells whenever people start talking like this.The people who communities blindly trust because "they've always served us in the past" are exactly the kind of people who become prime targets for blackmail, extortion, etc.
Giving people a blank check because we like them or because they've done good work previously is precisely the wrong thing to do.
Making sure that Blockstream is set up in a way that doesn't create perverse incentives is as much for their protection as ours.
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Quote
The federated peg approach necessarily compromises on trust, but requires no changes to
Bitcoin — only the participants need to agree to use it and only the participants take the costs
or risks of using it. Further, if someone wanted to prevent other people from using a sidechain they
could not do so: if the federated peg is used privately in a closed community, its use can be made
undetectable and uncensorable. This approach allows rapid deployment and experimentation and
550
will allow the community to gain confidence in pegged sidechains before adopting any changes to
the Bitcoin protocol.
Bitcoin — only the participants need to agree to use it and only the participants take the costs
or risks of using it. Further, if someone wanted to prevent other people from using a sidechain they
could not do so: if the federated peg is used privately in a closed community, its use can be made
undetectable and uncensorable. This approach allows rapid deployment and experimentation and
550
will allow the community to gain confidence in pegged sidechains before adopting any changes to
the Bitcoin protocol.
lol, none of them wanted to tackle 3 of my questions and they got downvoted. granted the last one was speculative but still:
[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago
is there such a thing as overdevelopment?
Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago
let's say one SC gets popular, say from faster tx times. it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC. now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC. this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk. after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying. they might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
how would you address this concern?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago
i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.
it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago
is there such a thing as overdevelopment?
Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago
let's say one SC gets popular, say from faster tx times. it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC. now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC. this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk. after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying. they might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
how would you address this concern?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago
i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.
it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
not sure where you're going with this.
if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.
if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?
your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.
I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening.
Possible scenario
-> quantum computer was built.
-> there is quantum computer resistant sidechain
-> panic :-)
i do find it interesting that the price tanked right after their announcement. the market doesn't like
confusion which will only get worse if we get a bunch of SC's with different economic assumptions
that could siphon off BTC to itself to the detriment of the main chain.
confusion which will only get worse if we get a bunch of SC's with different economic assumptions
that could siphon off BTC to itself to the detriment of the main chain.
Unfortunately we can't know for sure the reason why the recent price tank.
Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening.
Are the pegs between chains irrevocable? If not, what's to stop a side-chain dev from pumping the side-chain and then "trapping" bitcoins by revoking the outgoing peg?
lol, none of them wanted to tackle 3 of my questions and they got downvoted. granted the last one was speculative but still:
[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago
is there such a thing as overdevelopment?
Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago
let's say one SC gets popular, say from faster tx times. it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC. now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC. this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk. after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying. they might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
how would you address this concern?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago
i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.
it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago
is there such a thing as overdevelopment?
Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago
let's say one SC gets popular, say from faster tx times. it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC. now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC. this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk. after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying. they might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
how would you address this concern?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago
i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.
it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening.
Ok, so I get that the exchange rate between any side-chain unit and bitcoin can be "any deterministic function" with the obvious constraint that no more bitcoin can come back to the bitcoin-blockchain than left it in the first place.
Additionally, as I noted above, Greg said:
But I'm not sure that final clause is always true. What happens if a sidechain is issued with some fixed supply and some fixed exchange rate. Many of the IPO "2.0" coins use this sort of a model, roughly. Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Additionally, as I noted above, Greg said:
Quote from: nullc
Part of what I want (pegged) sidechains to exist and be successful is so that I can spend less time telling people NO and more time telling them "Good Luck with that", without having to also be telling them to create something that competes with the bitcoin currency.
But I'm not sure that final clause is always true. What happens if a sidechain is issued with some fixed supply and some fixed exchange rate. Many of the IPO "2.0" coins use this sort of a model, roughly. Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Emboldened is what I was getting at earlier.
Ok, so I get that the exchange rate between any side-chain unit and bitcoin can be "any deterministic function" with the obvious constraint that no more bitcoin can come back to the bitcoin-blockchain than left it in the first place.
Additionally, as I noted above, Greg said:
But I'm not sure that final clause is always true. What happens if a sidechain is issued with some fixed supply and some fixed exchange rate. Many of the IPO "2.0" coins use this sort of a model, roughly. Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Additionally, as I noted above, Greg said:
Quote from: nullc
Part of what I want (pegged) sidechains to exist and be successful is so that I can spend less time telling people NO and more time telling them "Good Luck with that", without having to also be telling them to create something that competes with the bitcoin currency.
But I'm not sure that final clause is always true. What happens if a sidechain is issued with some fixed supply and some fixed exchange rate. Many of the IPO "2.0" coins use this sort of a model, roughly. Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
If the conflict of interest can be addressed clearly, the sidechains will be good for Bitcoin ecosystem and the exchange rate of it. Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin will need its own infrastructure for trading and debt proof and share proof to circumvent the legal restriction from government without trusting too many 3rd exchange service. The better infrastructure will make Bitcoin more usefully money, which is a better money.
At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this.
A "Red Hat for Bitcoin" headquartered in the US would be a disaster.FWIW, I think they mention in the AMA they'll be based in SF, Montreal & Malta.
Will be interesting to see where they decided to incorporate and have their headquarter
edit :
actually they confirm here they are incorporated in Canada and Malta, not in the US
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhocei
At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this.
A "Red Hat for Bitcoin" headquartered in the US would be a disaster. So far, no good answers to the question of mismatched incentives:
https://twitter.com/JustusRanvier/status/525323754709458944
https://twitter.com/JustusRanvier/status/525323754709458944
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d
We think there is a tremendous business potential in building and supporting infrastructure in this space, some connected to Bitcoin and some not. E.g. by acting as a technology and services provider for other businesses in helping them migrate to a more Bitcoin-like way of doing business.
I got chills reading this. I have been thinking about this idea for awhile but didn't have a clear idea for how to implement. I am so excited to see such a solid team working on this.
At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this.
- private sidechains
- sidechain what lives only 1 working day(any duation) - no need to store full transaction history because bitcoins are transfered back to main chain
- sidechain what lives only 1 working day(any duation) - no need to store full transaction history because bitcoins are transfered back to main chain
So essentially, they want to move towards using the bitcoin blockchain as a timestamping service? You publish block header hashes and bitcoin timestamps them. If a court ever needs the records, they can prove that they are unaltered.
Thats just one of potentially thousands of use cases, yes.
Bottom line: Miners will collectively choose whether or not to enforce these changes. If you don't like it then you can garner enough processing power to influence the change. I believe bitcoin needs to scale one way or the other. This is just about as practical as any other solution including TCs and increasing the block size limit. I will support whatever consensus decision is made. Thankfully these decisions are made by people who have a vested interest in the system: miners.
Jump to: