Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 8. (Read 7771 times)

And at this point, how to fix the problem? those of us who maintain nodes could have the option to accept or not these ordinals? or is it up to the miners?

Yes, something like that.

The same miners, which secure Bitcoin. It is based on Merged Mining.

All new rules are expressed as a combination of existing ones, which means, that all mainchain rules are followed.

The basic rules are simple: you sign your coins to peg them in, and move them to peg them out. And of course, it is Bitcoin, because every signature is compatible with Bitcoin. And if you have something new, then it is expressed as a combination of existing rules. If you think that it is not Bitcoin, then it applies to LN as well (because the main difference is that you don't have to open a channel, if you already have some shared output, and you can reuse existing LN transactions on such sidechain).

It depends, which forks you have in mind. When it comes to hard forks, then you can apply that on each and every coin, including Bitcoin, and you have some altcoins, which did exactly that (but it is not possible to stop anyone from trying to do, what for example BCH did). But if you think about soft-forks or no-forks, then things could co-exist, without losing a peg. Because it is all about following the chain of signatures: if you have a signature, that is valid on Bitcoin, and on the sidechain at the same time, then you cannot really tell, that "it forked away", because you can see exactly the same chain of signatures in both networks.

Even more interesting things are possible: if some altcoin or sidechain preserved enough rules, then you can recreate the same chain of signatures in both networks, if you reach identical coinbase transactions. Because their uniqueness is based only on a block number, and not for example on block hashes, so things can be duplicated. Some example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63437260

Which means, that "and never return?" is never the case, because there are no technical issues with recreating a peg in those chains, which lost it in the past. But the community just don't want to get that feature, which is why nobody implemented it. There is even a page about blockchain fusion, if you are interested: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blockchain-fusion/

OK, I actually have MANY questions for you. But before we go further, you're describing something like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains - BIP-300/ BIP-301?


Although, who secures the decentralized sidechains, and I assume that they follow different consensus rules? I believe the answer to "If it's Bitcoin?", that's where everything starts to be more complicated

Plus is it possible for a sidechain to fork away from Bitcoin, and never return?

Why do you even care about receiving 0.5 sat from anyone? I don't care about fractions of cents, even though half a cent is worth a lot more than a whole satoshi. The exchanges I use count cents behind the decimal, and if I close my account, I lose them. That's fine.

If pegging out costs you $100 in transaction fees, it's only worth it for large amounts. Most people won't want to do it several times per month. That's rent money or food money.

Yes, but it is not about the amount, but about the ownership: if you want to have millisatoshis on-chain, then in the current version, you can only have a large multisig, behind a single satoshi, so if you have 500 millisatoshis from Alice, and the same from Bob, then all you can do, is to use 2-of-2 multisig on a single satoshi.

I think they are not. But if people say that coins in sidechains are, then coins in LN should also be called in the same way, if we follow the same logic.

You have IOUs only in centralized sidechains. For example: if you have a sidechain, where you have some large multisig, and you cannot be a miner, if you are not a part of some closed group, then those coins are IOUs. However, if you have decentralized sidechain, then you can use any scripts you want, because every block is covered only by hashrate, and not by some centrally-selected signature, like in signet.

1. If you have to provide a valid signature for a given coin, to transfer it from mainchain into sidechain, then it is based on real coins, and not some "coins created out of thin air".
2. If you have to move a given coin on the mainchain, to bring it back from the sidechain to the mainchain, then it is the same situation as with LN: you can always peg-out, without asking for anyone's permission.

And those two things alone: sign things to peg them in, and move them to peg them out, is sufficient to make a test network for decentralized sidechains. However, if you want to get the main network, then it is all about creating rules for the scripts, used to lock your coins. Which means, that if you have a single-key address, then you can test it alone, but no sane person will accept some coins, if the sender can always take them back, without losing anything. For that reason, the basic building block for decentralized sidechains is N-of-N multisig, where you can have a lot of people behind a single UTXO. And then, all kinds of improvements are focused on making "emergency scripts", to for example not require all N participants to be online, to change the state of the sidechain.

Because if you would have for example non-interactive transaction joining, then a single Taproot UTXO is all you need, to handle a single decentralized sidechain. And then, it is all about combining all signatures from that sidechain, and finalizing it as a simple commitment on-chain, which would have a constant size, regardless of how many people will use a given sidechain.

It didn't change that much since the last time, when I wrote about it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61778369

OK, the frankandbeans debate.

I'm the stupid one in the forum, and I actually want to learn from the point you're making. Teach me. How are the Bitcoins in those payment channels in Lightning "IOUs"? Where/how are the coins stored/locked and how are the "IOUs" issued?


I don't know. But, I'm confused, kindly explain to me how a Bitcoin-pegged-coin in a sidechain is an actual Bitcoin. What is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in a sidechain, and what is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in the Lightning Network.

I don't care about millisatoshis, and I'm totally find rounding them when settling on-chain. That's franky's thing to bring up, and it's kinda pointless to even discuss if you pay an on-chain transaction fee that's a million times larger. And that's the problem with LN: I know it's locked, but what's the point if you can't afford the fee for on-chain settlement?

yeah i guess so. the more storage requirements you place upon people running full nodes, the more centralized bitcoin becomes.

By using the same words, you could also say that about Lightning Network: "on-chain Bitcoins are locked" (behind 2-of-2 multisig), and also "then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted" (but here, it may be even worse, because of conversions between satoshis and millisatoshis, so you can "create millisatoshis out of thin air", because you cannot finalize them on-chain in the current version).

So, if you would have 2-of-2 multisig addresses on the sidechain, then what would be the difference? Because obviously, if you would have single-key addresses on the sidechain, then coins could be easily turned into IOU. However, if you would use exactly the same bytes as in LN, then where is the moment, when it is "not Bitcoin"?

It only depends on your spending conditions. If you have single-key address, then it can be turned into IOU, but it also has some use cases (for example as a test network). However, if you use the same scripts, as in LN, then where is that IOU?

I don't know what you're inventing, but if it's from a sidechain that merely represents a Bitcoin, then it's an IOU of a Bitcoin.


OK, I may be wrong. But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.


The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin. The debate is not Bitcoin vs. "use some altcoin".

And by asking them to increase throughput, they could be at risk of storing a larger volume of monkeys.  Storage and bandwidth requirements are always increasing, but if throughput is higher, then those costs increase at a faster rate.  So perhaps you understand their reluctance now?

well i certainly never thought of it as i'm being given a free ride when i paid a transaction fee to the network. maybe i need to learn how to submit my transactions directly a particular miner if that's the case because i dont want to hear people running full nodes complaining that they aren't getting compensated. who would want to have to listen to that?

 

and as for ordinals, i dont really feel like people running full nodes had any input into the matter of their hard drives being used to store monkeys. so at least in that case, more was demanded and required of them than many of them wanted to fulfill yet they had no choice, right?

There really isn't.  It's quite literally a network of people.  It doesn't work without them.

Ever notice how people refer to it as a "peer-to-peer network"?  Who do you think the peers are if not people?  

Asking more of Bitcoin is asking more of those who secure the network.  You're only ever going to get what they are prepared to offer.



Those who aren't running a full node have no input in the matter.  You're effectively a passenger.  It isn't fair for a passenger who isn't driving to ask more of the driver who is giving them a free ride.  They're the one paying for everything.

I think there's a distinction to be made between asking more of people and asking more of bitcoin. I was asking more of bitcoin. And I think its a fair thing to ask. We'll see what happens in the future.

It depends on your implementation. If you have some data, which can be turned into valid Bitcoin transaction, and broadcasted into Bitcoin network, then it is technically Bitcoin.

I wonder, why some people think, that transactions, which they create on LN, and are saved only on their local nodes, are Bitcoin, but if you put exactly the same transactions on the sidechain, then they suddenly are not. You can use exactly the same bytes, and just put them on sidechain, so the only difference is that instead of keeping things locally, you will share more of them with other nodes. But the data behind all of that, could contain exactly the same bytes. And if something is secret (for example some penalty transactions), then it could be encrypted, and shared, so if some node will see some old channel state, then that node will decrypt it, and act as a watchtower, by sharing the penalty transaction with everyone else.

So, your argument is that "the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin", and your solution is to specifically use some altcoin, which definitely "would not be Bitcoin"?

Although that would truly make it cheaper and more efficient to open channels in Lightning, the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin. They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain. So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin. At the minimum, the transactions in those channels would not be mere IOUs of the cryprocurrency it's supposed to represent.

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server?


Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee.

i don't owe them anything either.


yes i'm very disappointed in bitcoin how it only does 7 tps.

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

You'll find that expecting altruism from total strangers is a swift road to disappointment.