This is the privatization of Bitcoin - it already happened - page 2.

TierNolan

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1094

Quote from: NorrisK on October 14, 2015, 01:49:07 AM

Still requires a lot of trust I guess.

Yes, but you only have to trust the money that you send to the sidechain.

You could store 90% of your money on the main Bitcoin blockchain and 10% of it on the sidechain. The money on the sidechain can be used for fast payments (of whatever special feature that sidechain supports) and the money on the main chain is safer but less convenient.

Hopefully, with sufficient transparency, your money will still be safe on the sidechain.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TierNolan on October 13, 2015, 04:25:15 PM

Quote from: spacehopper on October 13, 2015, 05:45:46 AM

I don't understand how sidechains work, or how any fee system for them works, or if sidechains have been developed yet. Can someone post a really simple explanation of what they are?

A side chain is like an altcoin but it is linked to bitcoin. You can send BTC to the sidechain and withdraw it from the sidechain.

You send bitcoin to a bitcoin address and then you get credit on the sidechain. The money in the bitcoin address is held at a multi-sig address.

When you are done, you can transfer any credit back to bitcoin. The functionaries that control the multi-sig address send you the BTC you sent back.

If a (super?-)majority of the functionaries conspire, they can steal that bitcoin.

You start with money on the bitcoin network.

BTC: 1.0 BTC
Side: 0 BTC credit

Transfer 0.5BTC to 3 (multi-sig) on the bitcoin network.

BTC: 0.5 BTC
Side: 0.5 BTC credit

You can use your 0.5 BTC credit on the sidechain and send/receive on the sidechain. They are proposing to use it for exchanges.

To withdraw your money, you tell your sidechain client to send it back to bitcoin. This happens in 2 steps.

First you lose the sidechain credit

BTC: 0.5 BTC
Side: 0.0 BTC

Next the money in the 3 address (yours and anyone who sent money to the sidechain) is used to send you the 0.5BTC back.

BTC: 1.0 BTC
Side: 0.0 BTC

What about the fees that will be charged for using the sidechains?

At the end you probably have something like 0.99 BTC left instead of 1.0 BTC.

Also, what would happen to your side credit if the main btc gets hacked somehow?

Still requires a lot of trust I guess.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

"Zane Tackett, director of product development at Bitfinex, noted that the ability to move funds between exchanges in seconds would make arbitrage opportunities more accessible to the trading community."

For arbitraging, the biggest lag lies in fiat money transfer, which side chain can not help at all. However, traders can build liquidity pool in each exchange to reduce the lag regardless it is fiat money or bitcoin. The reduce of liquidity requirement for bitcoin is not a big benefit since 10 minutes is already lightning fast if you comparing with fiat money's 2-5 days delay

And to achieve zero delay, exchanges could just establish their clearing channel without involving all the technical complexities in side chain: Bitfinex opens an account of 2000 coins at Btcc and Btcc opens an account of 2000 coins at Bitfinex, it does not cost them a dime and will enable a channel for daily settlement immediately

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

I'll keep it under observation myself
Not going to have a strong opinion till I see some execution.

mayax

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Velkro on October 13, 2015, 07:59:09 PM

Quote

This is the privatization of Bitcoin - it already happened

Don't see here anything like this sentence from topic.
Many companies do their bitcoin side-projects, that all.

Maybe you can see that all the Bitcoin is already owned by certain persons. It's a "blockchain" formed by so called investors who are behind the big exchangers. All the big exchangers are owned by the same persons and the developers who are working for them. What's so hard to admit that?

It's so simple. A gang of hipsters/geeks who created their own e-currency and some "crytomonkeys" who believed the Satoshy's story like the myths of Inca who believed that a jaguar attacked and ate the moon on lunar eclipse. Yes, Bitcoin was made for everybody to get rich.

It's so funny how the people can be manipulated ! Grin

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Velkro on October 13, 2015, 07:59:09 PM

Quote

This is the privatization of Bitcoin - it already happened

Don't see here anything like this sentence from topic.
Many companies do their bitcoin side-projects, that all.

Maybe you still don't know that most Core devs are being on Blockstream payroll?

Velkro

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 1014

Quote

This is the privatization of Bitcoin - it already happened

Don't see here anything like this sentence from topic.
Many companies do their bitcoin side-projects, that all.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Its important to remember that side chains are a 3rd party service; they are not part of the bitcoin network.
We should move all these threads under / Bitcoin services.

TierNolan

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1094

Quote from: spacehopper on October 13, 2015, 05:45:46 AM

I don't understand how sidechains work, or how any fee system for them works, or if sidechains have been developed yet. Can someone post a really simple explanation of what they are?

A side chain is like an altcoin but it is linked to bitcoin. You can send BTC to the sidechain and withdraw it from the sidechain.

You send bitcoin to a bitcoin address and then you get credit on the sidechain. The money in the bitcoin address is held at a multi-sig address.

When you are done, you can transfer any credit back to bitcoin. The functionaries that control the multi-sig address send you the BTC you sent back.

If a (super?-)majority of the functionaries conspire, they can steal that bitcoin.

You start with money on the bitcoin network.

BTC: 1.0 BTC
Side: 0 BTC credit

Transfer 0.5BTC to 3 (multi-sig) on the bitcoin network.

BTC: 0.5 BTC
Side: 0.5 BTC credit

You can use your 0.5 BTC credit on the sidechain and send/receive on the sidechain. They are proposing to use it for exchanges.

To withdraw your money, you tell your sidechain client to send it back to bitcoin. This happens in 2 steps.

First you lose the sidechain credit

BTC: 0.5 BTC
Side: 0.0 BTC

Next the money in the 3 address (yours and anyone who sent money to the sidechain) is used to send you the 0.5BTC back.

BTC: 1.0 BTC
Side: 0.0 BTC

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: pedrog on October 13, 2015, 03:52:00 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on October 13, 2015, 12:29:02 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 02:48:35 AM

It already happened!

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

Blockstream really needed to prevent BigBlocks - and successfully did. Now, there is greater need for their offering: side chains. Side chains which they control, and they charge fees to use.

This is just the start. There will be many, many more features of 'advanced systems' pushed out of the core, pushed away from 'free', and controlled by profiteers.

Why did everyone listen to Blockstream when they so vigorously fought 8MB? now everyone gets to pay them fees!!! With 8MB blocks, no extra fees!

Bitcoin is fucked now.

With 8mb blocks = less and less people can deal with nodes and aren't able to run their own nodes = Bitcoin is fucked.

Sorry to burst your bubble but resources are limited, and a fee market seems like the only way to go about this unless you want to raise the block size until becomes centralized and only private organizations are able to afford nodes just like now only private organizations are doing mining.
We can't afford centralizing mining and nodes, and Lightning Networks seems like the best approach thus far.

It was intended to work like that from the beginning.

You don't run your own email server, your own IRC server or your own bittorrent tracker and that doesn't mean they are centralized.

Bitcoin development as been hijacked by a company and companies only serve themselves...

There is no use running your own email, IRC or bitorrent tracker as there is no trust requirement.

Unless you run your own node you depend on an authority to validate the authenticity of the coins you receive.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: pedrog on October 13, 2015, 03:52:00 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on October 13, 2015, 12:29:02 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 02:48:35 AM

It already happened!

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

Blockstream really needed to prevent BigBlocks - and successfully did. Now, there is greater need for their offering: side chains. Side chains which they control, and they charge fees to use.

This is just the start. There will be many, many more features of 'advanced systems' pushed out of the core, pushed away from 'free', and controlled by profiteers.

Why did everyone listen to Blockstream when they so vigorously fought 8MB? now everyone gets to pay them fees!!! With 8MB blocks, no extra fees!

Bitcoin is fucked now.

With 8mb blocks = less and less people can deal with nodes and aren't able to run their own nodes = Bitcoin is fucked.

Sorry to burst your bubble but resources are limited, and a fee market seems like the only way to go about this unless you want to raise the block size until becomes centralized and only private organizations are able to afford nodes just like now only private organizations are doing mining.
We can't afford centralizing mining and nodes, and Lightning Networks seems like the best approach thus far.

It was intended to work like that from the beginning.

You don't run your own email server, your own IRC server or your own bittorrent tracker and that doesn't mean they are centralized.

Bitcoin development as been hijacked by a company and companies only serve themselves...

Sound more drastic than it really is. Nothing prevent you from continuing to use the stock BTC and nothing will prevent it from getting a block size limit if that become the best path in the future.

If miners collectively agree that a block chain increase will be better than using the sidechains because of fees and such, then it will happen. Thats all.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Quote from: pereira4 on October 13, 2015, 12:29:02 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 02:48:35 AM

It already happened!

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

Blockstream really needed to prevent BigBlocks - and successfully did. Now, there is greater need for their offering: side chains. Side chains which they control, and they charge fees to use.

This is just the start. There will be many, many more features of 'advanced systems' pushed out of the core, pushed away from 'free', and controlled by profiteers.

Why did everyone listen to Blockstream when they so vigorously fought 8MB? now everyone gets to pay them fees!!! With 8MB blocks, no extra fees!

Bitcoin is fucked now.

With 8mb blocks = less and less people can deal with nodes and aren't able to run their own nodes = Bitcoin is fucked.

Sorry to burst your bubble but resources are limited, and a fee market seems like the only way to go about this unless you want to raise the block size until becomes centralized and only private organizations are able to afford nodes just like now only private organizations are doing mining.
We can't afford centralizing mining and nodes, and Lightning Networks seems like the best approach thus far.

It was intended to work like that from the beginning.

You don't run your own email server, your own IRC server or your own bittorrent tracker and that doesn't mean they are centralized.

Bitcoin development as been hijacked by a company and companies only serve themselves...

Pab

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1012

Preery great,thanks for sharing.Future is in btc with that,more liquidity,i hope it will be also available for ordinary people at low cost.Anyway it is great news

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 02:05:14 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:21:41 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:09:49 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 10:09:04 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

It already happened!

Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB.

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 10:00:26 AM

I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.

You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.

This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away.

Hey!

We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now Angry

Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream.

I'd much rather shill for BS

A fulltime volunteer ...

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:21:41 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:09:49 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 10:09:04 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

It already happened!

Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB.

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 10:00:26 AM

I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.

You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.

This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away.

Hey!

We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now Angry

Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream.

I'd much rather shill for BS than cypherdoc & his clowns posse Wink

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:09:49 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 10:09:04 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

It already happened!

Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB.

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 10:00:26 AM

I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.

You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.

This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away.

Hey!

We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now Angry

Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zarathustra on October 13, 2015, 01:09:49 PM

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 10:09:04 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

It already happened!

Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB.

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 10:00:26 AM

I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.

You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.

This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away.

Hey!

We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now Angry

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: RawDog on October 13, 2015, 10:09:04 AM

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.

Quote from: Blawpaw on October 13, 2015, 10:04:12 AM

It already happened!

Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB.

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 10:00:26 AM

I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.

You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.

This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away.

The fulltime BS shill captures also your thread. He's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 13, 2015, 12:39:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 12:31:25 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 13, 2015, 12:27:09 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 12:11:04 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 13, 2015, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 11:50:26 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 13, 2015, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 13, 2015, 11:39:24 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 13, 2015, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: AGD on October 13, 2015, 11:30:24 AM

Sidechains will only accumulate a lot of internal transactions to a small number of transactions to the core blockchain. I don't see any negative effect with this, but for the users of the sidechain, who cannot track their transactions on the blockchain.
All the rest of the FUD is bs, just like this topic.

One could ask why using bitcoin at all when banks are already working on their own permissioned blockchain.

Because I can use Bitcoin peer-to-peer. At least now with Liquid if I choose to use an exchange to trade or whatever then I expose myself to a more distributed risk model wherein if one exchange fails or gets compromised my funds are not at risk of vanishing.

How Liquid is this more P2P than banks permissioned blockchain again?

Je sais pas si c'est ton retard mental qui s'incruste dans ta grammaire, mais ta phrase fait aucun sens.

It makes absolute sense if you go reread my original question which you didn't answered at all.

Liquid is not meant to be used as a P2P transaction system, neither are permisionned blockchain.

The point is that using Liquid is entirely voluntary and if you choose to opt-out and use a purely peer-to-peer network (Bitcoin) you can.

For that you still need the bitcoin blockchain to scale properly.

Indeed.

Fortunately smarter minds have realized this is not done by simply raising the block size

So how then? AFAIK this is the only viable solution available right now.

Well obviously you've painted me into a certain corner by using the term "bitcoin blockchain".

The more correct interpretation and the more healthy alternative is to keep Bitcoin's blockchain at a minimal size and use additional, trustless layers (LN, voting pools), to scale the Bitcoin ecosystem