Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 22.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on April 11, 2014, 12:45:37 AM

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 12:21:40 AM

Quote from: Peter R on April 10, 2014, 10:57:52 PM

We've refined the idea of "spin-offs" as alt-coins that are launched with a pre-mine exactly equal to the unspent bitcoin outputs at the time the "snap shot" of the blockchain was taken.

Exactly equal or proportional? The latter seems fine.

Right again, smooth. You have a good eye for detail and logic. I corrected the post.

It's an interesting point. How is the constant of proportionality determined, and does 0 count?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 12:21:40 AM

Quote from: Peter R on April 10, 2014, 10:57:52 PM

We've refined the idea of "spin-offs" as alt-coins that are launched with a pre-mine exactly equal to the unspent bitcoin outputs at the time the "snap shot" of the blockchain was taken.

Exactly equal or proportional? The latter seems fine.

Right again, smooth. You have a good eye for detail and logic. I corrected the post.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on April 10, 2014, 10:57:52 PM

We've refined the idea of "spin-offs" as alt-coins that are launched with a pre-mine exactly equal to the unspent bitcoin outputs at the time the "snap shot" of the blockchain was taken.

Exactly equal or proportional? The latter seems fine.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

I see that this thread got moved from "Bitcoin discussion" to "Alternate cryptocurrencies."

I think we've made good progress today (5 pages of comments). We've refined the idea of "spin-offs" as alt-coins that are launched with a pre-mine proportional to the unspent bitcoin outputs at the time the "snap shot" of the blockchain was taken. Users can claim their coins in the alt chain by signing a message with the corresponding bitcoin private key and posting it to the spin-off network.

The purpose of spin-offs is to incentivize alt-coins to compete based on their technical merit and in a non-inflationary manner, as described by cypherdoc:

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 04:32:05 PM

the real genius in Peter R's scheme is that b/c open source has now evolved to becoming best practice, this puts altcoin devs in a tough spot. they are forced to innovate for Bitcoin, not a scamcoin. this will unify the entire cryptocurrency space. and if they decide to be closed source, it's over for them from day 1.

Although both spin-offs and side-chains preserve blockchain scarcity, spin-offs achieve this in a less threatening way that neither requires changes to bitcoin nor impedes experimentation and innovation.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 07:22:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 07:17:07 PM

Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

They can't be less valuable other than for very short term liquidity reasons (jumping chains is like mining so you have to wait, so you might prefer to trade, but that will be at a small premium) because the are exchangeable. The effect of a side chain not being secure is that no one would exchange into it and everyone would exchange out of it, so it just dies.

This of course may mean the whole scheme fails. If people do not view any of these side chains as secure, no one will ever exchange in. You might need a floating exchange rate (i.e. altcoin) to allow people to price the risk.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 07:17:07 PM

Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

They can't be less valuable other than for very short term liquidity reasons (jumping chains is like mining so you have to wait, so you might prefer to trade, but that will be at a small premium) because the are exchangeable. The effect of a side chain not being secure is that no one would exchange into it and everyone would exchange out of it, so it just dies.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 07:02:41 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:53:30 PM

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?

You would lose out unless the genesis of the new coin also recognized that particular sidechain keys. Depending on the details of how the two-way peg works, it might be possible to recognize keys from any sidechain that is exchangeable into btc.

Thank you. So as with bitcoins on an exchange anyone interested in maximising their claim on the new coin would need temporarily to transfer any sidechain alts back into bitcoin. That is I guess another advantage of sidechain alts over alt alts (or however they will eventually be classified) is that the fixed ratio between sidechain alts and bitcoins means the shift shouldn't have the big impact on demand and price that say moving from original LTC to BTC would in both markets.

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:52:28 PM

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

I think spin-off is pretty good. Matches the usage for stocks.

I like spin-off too.

it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now. but i should reserve judgment until there's more info. if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy. Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.

Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.

thoughtfan

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 506

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 10, 2014, 06:39:14 PM

are the ethereum guys saying "FUCK" right about now

If their primary intention was to make a fortune out of their innovation one would expect so but so far it looks to me like at least Vitalik is more interested in contributing constructively to the discussion.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6150824

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 06:54:57 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 04:49:11 PM

Quote

Mining capacity is irrelevant to this proposal. Merged-mining with bitcoin can be done either way.

i don't think Peter's proposal involves merged mining. integrating that would be quite the headache and would require a massive PR effort to get the miners to agree.

Any coin can be merged-mined if the creator desires. It doesn't require miners to agree and in fact it miners don't even have to merge mine if they don't want, it is just more efficient.

Bitcoin miners would have to agree to add the hash of an altcoin block into a Bitcoin block, so yes, they do have to agree in aggregate to merge mine. see here:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work

It's been a while since I looked but my recollection was that you could also do regular mining on namecoin (the block validation code will accept either a NMC pow or proof of a BTC pow, but it isn't economical to do so because so many people merge mine it, so the difficulty is high. On a new alt that might not be true.

thoughtfan

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 506

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:53:30 PM

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?

You would lose out unless the genesis of the new coin also recognized that particular sidechain keys. Depending on the details of how the two-way peg works, it might be possible to recognize keys from any sidechain that is exchangeable into btc.

Thank you. So as with bitcoins on an exchange anyone interested in maximising their claim on the new coin would need temporarily to transfer any sidechain alts back into bitcoin. That is I guess another advantage of sidechain alts over alt alts (or however they will eventually be classified) is that the fixed ratio between sidechain alts and bitcoins means the shift shouldn't have the big impact on demand and price that say moving from original LTC to BTC would in both markets.

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:52:28 PM

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

I think spin-off is pretty good. Matches the usage for stocks.

I like spin-off too.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:52:28 PM

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

I think spin-off is pretty good. Matches the usage for stocks.

And just like that it was named. Spin-offs.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 04:49:11 PM

Quote

Mining capacity is irrelevant to this proposal. Merged-mining with bitcoin can be done either way.

i don't think Peter's proposal involves merged mining. integrating that would be quite the headache and would require a massive PR effort to get the miners to agree.

Any coin can be merged-mined if the creator desires. It doesn't require miners to agree and in fact it miners don't even have to merge mine if they don't want, it is just more efficient.

Bitcoin miners would have to agree to add the hash of an altcoin block into a Bitcoin block, so yes, they do have to agree in aggregate to merge mine. see here:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?

You would lose out unless the genesis of the new coin also recognized that particular sidechain keys. Depending on the details of how the two-way peg works, it might be possible to recognize keys from any sidechain that is exchangeable into btc.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: thoughtfan on April 10, 2014, 06:49:44 PM

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

I think spin-off is pretty good. Matches the usage for stocks.

thoughtfan

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 506

It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.

Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: smooth on April 10, 2014, 06:43:30 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 10, 2014, 06:39:14 PM

are the ethereum guys saying "FUCK" right about now

Every open source project faces the possibility of forking. If they didn't think through their business model well enough, too bad. They need to adapt or die.

Yeah true, but I do not think they were anticipating this new bootstrapping protocol, right?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 10, 2014, 06:39:14 PM

are the ethereum guys saying "FUCK" right about now

Every open source project faces the possibility of forking. If they didn't think through their business model well enough, too bad. They need to adapt or die.

In all likelihood several of them as individuals will get greater recognition of their abilities as a result of the project regardless of the outcome and can move on the bigger and better things, if it comes to that.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

are the ethereum guys saying "FUCK" right about now

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 10, 2014, 04:49:11 PM

Quote

Mining capacity is irrelevant to this proposal. Merged-mining with bitcoin can be done either way.

i don't think Peter's proposal involves merged mining. integrating that would be quite the headache and would require a massive PR effort to get the miners to agree.

Any coin can be merged-mined if the creator desires. It doesn't require miners to agree and in fact it miners don't even have to merge mine if they don't want, it is just more efficient.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on April 10, 2014, 06:17:52 PM

I think a lot of us feel this way about alt coins in general, Brandon. And I think Daniel was right when he wrote about their coming demise.

The fallacy in his argument is that he assumes the race is already won and bitcoin won it. He is likely right there will be only one liquid coin, but from my perspective $5 billion market cap (and falling) is not a winner yet. The race hasn't even really started.

Quote

I believe I've shown that if anyone has a truly innovative idea it is in both their best interest and the best interest of the community as a whole to apply the distribution method described in the OP. It will sink or swim based on its own merits.

I agree with you here. Crypto-style IPOs are not a good business model and just attract scams, even if (big if) that wasn't the explicit intent of the first few.

Topic: Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 22. (Read 53616 times)