Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 31. (Read 99876 times)

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:31:26 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:52:36 AM

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS :-) )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

I think the insecurity of the side chain can wreck the Bitcoin block chain. If I am mistaken, I request someone to point out why.

Please see pages 8, 9, and 12 of the Blockstream side chains white paper. It says that the coins on the Bitcoin block chain can be unlocked by presenting a proof-of-work from the side chain, but that this can be invalidated by a longer proof-of-work. So this means that a lie-in-wait attack on the side chain could allow someone to unlock coins on Bitcoin's block chain, spend them, let others spend them in a fanout of derivative transactions, then reverse the Bitcoin transactions by presenting a longer proof-of-work from the side chain invalidating all those Bitcoin block chain transactions. In short, it seems to me a chain reorganization on the side chain can cause a chain reorganization on the Bitcoin block chain.

I am ready to go to sleep, so I am just skimming quickly with my re-reading of that white paper, so perhaps I missed something?

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized.

Some yummy for you on page 15:

"
RSK aims to be a better payment network. To achieve fast payments, several solutions have
been developed:

- Use of competition-free block selection (e.g. Hyperledger, Ripple, closed-loop systems)
- Use of hub-and-spoke networks (e.g. Bitcoin lightning network)
- Use of high PoW block rates

Hub-and-spoke networks add new centralization nodes, and require a complete adaptation
of client wallets to a new, completely different payment model. Although so this alternative
can be easily implemented on RSK, is not the native system for fast payments. RSK adopts
the DECOR+ and FastBlock5 protocols, which allow reaching a 10 seconds average block
rate that does not create incentives for mining centralization, is selfish-mining free and
incentive compatible.

"

https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/90847694-70f0-4668-ba7f-dd0c6b0b00a1/RootstockWhitePaperv9-Overview.pdf

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:47:54 AM

Quote from: hv_ on March 07, 2016, 09:44:57 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:31:26 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 10:02:39 AM

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS :-) )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

Yes - agreed, but I mean rather it has no negative effect to the main chain, if you don't care using the side chain.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic.

Your reply has reminded me of Mark Twain.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 07, 2016, 10:01:14 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:52:36 AM

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not). So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam.

I'm sorry I didn't emphasize that I know you were being sarcastic. But you are also being pragmatic, as you've always astutely been. I don't fault you for that! Even Satoshi failed at decentralization.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:52:36 AM

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not). So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

I'm sorry that I didn't wrap that post into tags. I'm flattered that you use my posts as argumentum ad verecundiam.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Basically all block chain projects have decided to abandon decentralization and just pretend (whether they realize it or not)[1]. So they can do features that don't work without centralization.

Come-from-Beyond say people are happy with that, and the sheep usually are happy to be lead to their slaughter.

[1] Note Monero has the most ASIC-resistant hash released thus far. They haven't solved the economic centralization issue, but for the time being afaik I presume mining is reasonably decentralized.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: hv_ on March 07, 2016, 09:44:57 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:31:26 AM

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS :-) )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

I have no idea what you mean. Chain reorganizations in the weaker chain can cause people to lose their Bitcoins. The chains can get out-of-sync. There is no way for a block chain to securely reference any data point outside of itself. This is fundamentally why Augur and BitUSD can't function without centralization.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:31:26 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 07, 2016, 09:31:26 AM

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS :-) )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

The security is reduced to that of the weakest side chain.

So the pegging needs to be transient !

from their Whitepaper:

• Two-way pegging using sidechains (currently a federated peg, fully automatic peg
subject to Bitcoin improvements)

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Next Paradox:

Rootstock comes up with smart contacts using bitcoin: ( I do not see any Casper in yet... and no PoS :-) )

https://medium.com/@CryptoIQ.ca/rootstock-smart-contracts-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain-e52b065421a8#.npkfpas4w

Side-chains are insecure. DOA.

To the BTC chain itself? IMO it lowers the complexity,...

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262