Topic: Proposal Ethereum as the layer 2 to Bitcoin (Read 649 times)

Then to scale, you believe the network should be more scaled-in? Fewer full nodes centralized towards the miners?

Only the miners' nodes "should" matter, right?


What is such "protocol" that the community should be using? I cannot wait for you to tell us.

https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html

Seems on point.

Basically - a federated group runs the onchain multisig contract. If the majority/all agree on the outcome they sign and pay out. All the clever logic is done off chain. It can be anything at all as is not limited by the on-chain script language.

Works today on BTC. Works for any future scripts. All that matters is that those who run the simple multisig contract on-chain are in agreement as to the outcome of the more complex off-chain contract.

If there is an error in the off-chain script, it can be fixed!.. since it is all off chain anyway. They just have to agree.

Quite like it.

Scaling really MEANS scaling - in all aspects. So running a private relay node at home is NOT scaling, rather the opposite.

This can be done better where the core protocol that dose not need much changes / rather bug Fixing (like smtp has settled and became success years ago - or u shill for smtp core devs today ?)

Such protocol MUST be as thin as possible ( better scaling options incoming  / less error prone  btw)


To see that protocol devs need to dev is a mess  -  a protocol needs only design and strict refactoring to it's minimal Jobs ( PRO-TO-COL ) no add on fearures == mess!

Add on Feature belongs to application layers - These needs devs / and stable design (protocol) to work on top.


Watch - there is a project out that has exactly this road map.  

I was just pointing that out because you said, "So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes."

Plus even if Bitcoin was CPU-only mining, there will always be some miners who will be more efficient, and more competitive than others. The reality is not all who wants to become a miner, can be a miner.


Do you mean the system in which only the competent are followed? Because if the Core developers were to allow every incompetent developer to work on Bitcoin, I believe the network would be a mess.


Name a project that's run like that.

The facts u state clearly. For financial law and regulations there are forces in place for harmonizing cause global markets and $ dominance are facts.  All other sections of law we can neglect.

Anyway its a good idea to stay on purpose and stay honest for that.

The purpose of Bitcoin was stated 10y ago. It is P2P electronic cash ensured by PoW.

Wanna dispute that?


Any noob s getting this and thats ok.

Selling Segwit or LN under whatever skewed facts is not honest

 

While the SEC's international reach is questionable to begin with, it doesn't care when no US citizens are involved. Financial regulation within the EU is vastly different from financial regulation in the US. Financial services that may be available to US citizens may be illegal to EU citizens and vice versa. Regulation in China, India, Russia and other nations of the world is different still. Financial regulations are just as fragmented as the rest of the law.



There simply is no global consensus on what is "honest" or even "legal".

It is fragmented, sure. But how about financial markets?

How long are still the arms of SEC and CFTC ?

What ccy is still dominant?

Not much needed to see, where still that law is coming from...

So again, if Bitcoin wants to be global accepted and stay, better do not give any reason to get kicked by any of the global players. Or stay nichy and banned.

Easy to choose and it works fine btw


Honest (mining) is always your sustainable friend

Which law?

US federal Law? US state law? EU Law? German Law? Canadian Law?

Civil law? Criminal law? Contract law?

There's no global legislature and most likely there won't be within our lifetime. Most international agreements are just guidelines without repercussions. International trade, tax as well as diplomatic agreements vary vastly between the involved nations.

The legal system is incredibly fragmented, always changing and full of edge cases. It's the opposite of what a static protocol can handle, and far from simple. Additionally not everything that's legal is exactly ethical and not everything that's ethical is legal -- with the question of ethics being subjective to boot.

While humans are fallible there's a reason that most nations depend on a hierarchical court systems to tend to those laws. Maybe one day we'll have a benevolent AI acting as judge, jury and executioner (if one deems this a desirable scenario), until then legality is an issue that needs to be handled on a social level, not a technical level.

This social level is a separate protocol level of its own, if you will. As such that's where you want to keep the responsibility for legal concerns. What your post is suggesting is a mixing of protocol layers and responsibilities. I'm fairly certain that most people with a bit of a background in computer science, telecommunications and / or software engineering will agree that that's rarely a good idea.

The reason why there are ASICs is SCALE - the reason for miners use leased line fibre nets is SCALE  the reason why miners use plants and high tech  is SCALE -

we need just more stabitity and use to invite more mining / using companies - This is all open space  - open for growth and that gives a lot of security (and 'decentralization' , however u want to define that )

All (size) limits some (limted) groups  want to apply / invent into bitcoin are bad for any growht ( and security . decentralization ,..)

Bitcoin as a real open System is the only way to go.

That was the "original vision", but the reality of ASICs, and that big blocks do not scale has caused us to have "the Bitcoin" that we have today. Many people in the community are not happy, but I believe it's still good enough as a secure, censorship-resistant, permissionless, and sovereign cryptocurrency.

Some developers needed to be creative to scale it in some other way, but without altering the consensus layer. That's not a problem to me, is it a problem to you?

This

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm

The only legit and scalable new thing here is Bitcoin as a permissionless p2p eCash protocol, working as the smtp for value exchange.

All other additional functions like smart contracts that should execute a legal contract like issuing tokens on a blockchain have to be centralized/ permissioned cause u need to be compliant with law anyway, except u want to scam others.  So pls do NOT shill or create such things that are easily enable scamming, better vote for decent institutions who are compliant with law.

The only legit decentralized service is Bitcoin described in the white paper , following the specs and purpose.

With this exactly recommended simplicity comes in and all the ( cyber-) risk guys can do their jobs. Protocol stability helps a lot btw.  Second simplicity and functional decomposition goes hand in hand with scaling ability, since u only want to scale the parts that need it by maximum parallel processing.

All that makes Bitcoin way more secure, cause many individual folks will have deep dives into and make it happen for the world,   decentralized comes as a result

By introducing permissioned components as suggested in your post above.

Once you allow for measures against permissionlessness on the protocol level you're back at the restrictions of centralized services. While regulation on a legislative level is more or less unavoidable and to some extend desirable (eg. clear taxation laws on cryptocurrency income, clear legal frameworks to allow for legitimate exchanges to operate in), the technological foundation needs to be non-partisan and permissionless to allow for a meaningful improvement on existing systems.

I might be misunderstanding what you are suggesting though.



Simplicity does not necessarily equate openness and scalability. Also in the case of cryptocurrencies openness and scalability account for nothing if security and integrity are neglected.

How on earth could an open protocol and an open ecosystem be like Paypal or any other closed / central entitiy ??

BTW the less rules the open protocol has, the more open it is and the better it is scalable ...

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks


Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

Keep Bitcoin to stay just a scalable permissionless eCash message system - all related stuff is better to be NOT permissionless (for scaling and legal).     

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.


I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.


If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  
Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.


Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

OP, you can build on Bitcoin anything you want, no matter how good or stupid, as long as it doesn't alter, or needs to alter the consensus layer.

I've already proposed a similar system in the past, I even developed it to the point of being to make card payments in Bitcoin. I almost had it ready for demo at Coinfest 2016 and the general concensus (on here at least at the time) was that Bitcoin is fine as it is and there's little need for a faster confirmation time. I'm still developing for Bitcoin but my focus has moved onto a new payment system based on Ethereum tokens (and not another coin with an ICO to raise funds)

I don't think so. If the blockchain can fail (meaning if an invalid block generated. It will die for those who consider it invalid). And it requires a single entity to control the chain. It's obviously centralized. But some applications don't require it to be open and public. This doesn't mean it should be permission based.
Immutability can help multiple users make sure either blockchain will fail or confirmation goes through. Still the main chain (bitcoin) can re-org and change the history of private chain.

Edit:
By this i meant. "This doesn't mean it should be permission based." => Still that blockchain can use bitcoin's code as Its base.

By private blockchain i mean, The ownership is private. It doesn't prevent the blockchain to get validated and used by other users.

Private blockchains and immutability are exclusive, you can't have both. Ethereum's DAO debacle is a prime example of what happens to immutability when certain parties have too much power within an ecosystem.

Rootstock (now RSK) seems to offer what you need. It's a merge-mined federated Bitcoin sidechain, compatible to Ethereum. Check www.rsk.co

Prominent use-case of Ethereum is to create a new currency with new rules like ICO's. Decentralization is a myth remained in most discussions.

There's need for two important features in these currencies.

1. All participants should be able to validate the integrity of the ledger.
2. Ledger should be resistant to changes. Ultimate goal = immutable ledger

Instead of Ethereum I like the idea of each currency have their own blockchain with the above features.
In example of ICO's. All of them have issuer (owner). So it being public (mining/staking based) Doesn't make sense.
Also maintaining staking/mining based consensus is expensive.
Running a privately owned blockchain is the way to go.  And in this thread i did talk about how we can implement this feature in bitcoin in such a way to it would be very efficient to run (less expensive).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/private-blockchains-connected-to-bitcoins-pow-5120606

Your proposal assumes that scaling of Ethereum is a done deal. However Buterin's declaration about 100000 transactions per second is not quite enough, proofs are needed as well.

I think there is no need.

It's possible to implement smartcontracts and some others ethereum capabilities to bitcoin
Not all of ethereum capabilities, but the most important ones.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying but... I don't think that this is how any of this works. You can't just graft one blockchain onto another to get the best of both worlds. Especially not in the way described.

If you're really interested in how to get separate blockchains to benefit from one another look into atomic cross chain swaps of what the future of cryptocurrency may entail.

bitcoin as a decentralized and immutable cryptocurrency does not really math with others that are both centralized and mutable so you can't really combine it with something like ethereum. besides if smart contracts is all you want, we already have second layers that can do that in a lot better manner. check out RootStock for instance.

Imagine an entity that would take btc into a multi sig wallet and then wrap it onto eth. The idea might seem unneeded but think about what it would enable. Companies could use the btc network for high value transfers or storage but otherwise most would be kept in the wrapped state. We then port all btc services to running on eth and just using btc chain for issuance. This allows us to have both a highly flexible environment for dapps and a way to reduce the verification needed and block size for btc. We immediately allow Bitcoin access to the world's biggest platform for the world's most decentralised currency. This would make eth the l2 for btc. Btc transactions would go from 10m to 15s and we can utilize projects like plasma and zk rollup for instant micro transactions or fully anonymous btc transactions. This would require no hard fork to btc at all. The funds for the tokn issuance and holding btc could be a multisig spread through large players in the space through a consortium with players such as  Coinbase, Kraken or even governments being part to help them to have a reason to embrace blockchain and cryptocurrency by letting them feel like they have a say without giving up power to them. We can make Bitcoin be the best currency on top of the best platform with the most choice.