Pages:
Author

Topic: Why the anti-blockstream sentiment? - page 2. (Read 894 times)

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 23, 2016, 12:07:17 AM
#2
So what if a sidechain is privately owned, at least they are supporting the public domain Bitcoin structure.

It could be privately owned, but it doesn't have to be. As long as the peg can be enforced trustlessly with smart contracts, there need not be counterparty risk. Until of course, we get to how to secure the sidechain. Merged mining has been floated as an interesting way to avoid consensus being federated among "owners" of the sidechain, which is the privately-owned model you're suggesting.

And the private and/or federated model can work too -- I think that's the proposal for Liquid -- but it doesn't need to be private. At least in theory.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2474
https://JetCash.com
March 22, 2016, 11:56:47 PM
#1
Am I missing something? I thought Blockstream was about sidechains that are linked to the central Bitcoin blockchain. This would seem to be a great concept, and I believe we need more of them. They could remove the transaction pressure caused by micro-payments from faucets and gambling for example. So what if a sidechain is privately owned, at least they are supporting the public domain Bitcoin structure. Conceptually Bitcoin wallet providers create a form of sidechain, but nobody attacks them. PayPal, Visa and other payment providers are "sidechains" for fiat currencies, but again, people seem to think the concept is good, even if PayPal is a bad service.
Pages:
Jump to: