Cypher, I respect your opinion but am at a loss on this one with where you are. The sidechains, while this will surely be a major change to bitcoin is absolutely necessary to ensure the role of bitcoin as the leader in the space. It also ensures that the fixed supply we seek with an e-currency is actually a possibility. At the moment, "cheap" alts are taking a decent amount of funding that would otherwise be going into bitcoin. What exactly is the issue if some of the bitcoins are lost? Better in that situation than an alt coin simply evaporates. In both situations wealth evaporates, but only in sidechain scenario does wealth increase (of bitcoin holders) irregardless of an evaporation.
In regards to coding with a profit model, I think Greg said it best:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k070h/enabling_blockchain_innovations_with_pegged/clh5wbv
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 845. (Read 2032266 times)
sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/
but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past.
you're right, again
The first time I heard about SCs project was while listening to let's talk bitcoin E99
(or even an earlier nee, 77 maybe?).
In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins.
Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.
With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.
He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.
SC's can't ever be an independent testbed separate from Bitcoin itself. they will be linked by the code, security, and economic assumptions of their relative values and any market evaluation will make an assessment of the entire ecosystem; Bitcoin+SC's in aggregate.
nothing will be learned from looking at a SC in isolation b/c of this economic linkage.
So it seems that the real problem is the concentration of core devs into a single company, rather than the concept in itself.
...and the Bitcoin Core monopoly itself.I want to see the network fully heterogenous at the implementation level.
We should be just as concerned about all the mining being done with Bitcoin Core as we are concerned about too much hashing being controlled by ghash.io.
Get btcd, libbitcoin, and a couple more independent implementations in there too.
I like the Conformal model.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
sure you are right,if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
I don't think the problem is the fork as much as it's the financial incentive to get their fork in, and then block all other future forks that would render sidechains less necessary.
Fair.
So it seems that the real problem is the concentration of core devs into a single company, rather than the concept in itself.
I hope that community financial incentives will work to against sidechains in case this idea/implementation turns out to be bad.
In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins.
Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.
With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.
He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.
That's probably what Adam Back wants.Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.
With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.
He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.
However, this isn't just about him.
Blockstream has investors, who presumably want a return on their investment, a return that requires the continuing relevance of sidechains.
If the Bitcoin protocol adopts features that are developed in sidechains, then the need for sidechains diminishes.
What will those investors say about that? What will Blockstream do in response?
sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/
but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past.
you're right, again
The first time I heard about SCs project was while listening to let's talk bitcoin E99
(or even an earlier nee, 77 maybe?).
In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins.
Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.
With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.
He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.
part of the hopium alt(shit)coins have is that they may be the bitcoin killer.. its the only driver for speculation in most of them... thus with sidechains it may make ppl realize goddammit why not just stick to my main (job).. thus its actually bullish btc not bearish.. it should keep alt market honest.
the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.
If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?
Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please
Sidescams can propose any economic model they want, no different than altcoins. unfortunately, some ppl will be lured over to them and lose BTC.
when lots of that activity occurs over years, then i will propose a truly revolutionary idea; let's totally separate these Sidescams technically from the main chain so as to not let ppl lose their BTC! everyone will then say, "great idea!"
Yeah some people. Probably the same number of people who use altcoins. Any side chain is going to have the same problems as an alt. Noone will accept it anywhere - 'backed' 100% (or much much less) by bitcoin or not. At the same time bitcoin is achieving real utility as an online currency.
there is a real practical drawback to Sidescams as well.
let's say one 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'll probably be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
no, better any innovations get built into Core so as to not disrupt everyones long term storage plans and their investment assumptions.
let's say one 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'll probably be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
no, better any innovations get built into Core so as to not disrupt everyones long term storage plans and their investment assumptions.
Sidechains = sidejobs. Valid way of working but you never know when it will end and it will never replace the main line of work (bitcoin)
the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.
If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?
Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please
Sidescams can propose any economic model they want, no different than altcoins. unfortunately, some ppl will be lured over to them and lose BTC.
when lots of that activity occurs over years, then i will propose a truly revolutionary idea; let's totally separate these Sidescams technically from the main chain so as to not let ppl lose their BTC! everyone will then say, "great idea!"
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/
but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past.
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
sure you are right,if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
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.
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.
if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.
Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.
TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.
PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
and you see no problem with it being designed and run by a for profit company?
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
have you read u/historians comments on Reddit? lots of good stuff in there.
for instance, what if the involved core devs decide, or are told, that any signif innovations are to be directed toward a SC they happen to have invested in instead of Bitcoin Core?
ossification excuses could also be interpreted to mean that innovations proposed by nullc, et al haven't been good enough to implement.
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.
Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap. Can no $ flow to contributors?
Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.
In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included. This might be the hardest part. At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended
Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.
Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.
Almost sounds like your new Fed.
Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party).
Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.
Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.
TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.
PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
I expect cryptographic proof of reserve to be mandatory for any centralized solutions in the future
the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
the market has invested accordingly based on those. by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.
we're seeing it right now.
I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.
If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?
Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please
Jump to: