Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Can someone ELI5 the implications of this? Am I correct that this makes sidechains less useful than originally imagined?

Also, does anyone know if there is actually a working implementation of the "compact proofs" to move coins from the side chain back to the main chain? Appendix B from sidechains.pdf reads to me as a hand-wavvy "it should be possible in theory but we don't really have the details worked out."
that's what it sounds like to me.
further down he says this:

"That said, there are some benefits. The sidechains are effectively sharded and can be validating in parallel on different servers or using bandwidth of different internet connections."

i still have lotsa questions like:

1. who's gonna run full nodes to secure these SC's?
2. why would i, as a for profit corp contracting with Blockstream, not have them sign a non-compete that would be effectively enforecable against their Bitcoin core devs?
3. what miner is gonna want to run ALL the MM daemons along with their complexity, time, & labor?
4. OneName/Namecoin is a huge red flag.

that's just a start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Peter R

humanitee

Member
Sep 7, 2015
80
141
@Peter R, I went hunting for the original paper and while I couldn't find the exact answer I did find some related quotes:

from: https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf, specifically appendix A and B (as you had mentioned)

Appendix B Efficient SPV proofs
In order to transfer coins from a sidechain back to Bitcoin, we need to embed proofs that sidechain coins were locked in the Bitcoin blockchain. These proofs should contain (a) a record that an output was created in the sidechain, and (b) a DMMS proving sufficient work on top of this output. Because Bitcoin’s blockchain is shared and validated by all of its participants, these proofs must not impose much burden on the network. Outputs can be easily recorded compactly, but it is notobvious that the DMMS can be.
They then argue about the trade offs of various implementation strategies throughout appendix B. It seems possible (from a cursory reading), it's just a matter of the implementation nuances, trading size and speed for security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@Peter R

Here's another contradiction:

4. Minimum network fees are fine for regular users but not fine for spammers.

Btw, this is great:

 

cbeast

Active Member
Sep 15, 2015
260
299
Its premature to worry about people not using btc to denominate their contracts while we're still experiencing so much inflation.

After the third reward halving we should see a lot more willingness to denominate long term contracts in btc terms.
Premature perhaps, but changing the name from dust to something that implies an atomic unit for assets helps people understand its utility. The term "share" of stock is vague (because there are so many types), but its general purpose is understood.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Great insight by /u/noosterdam:


@cypherdoc

Would you rather Core agree to some block size limit increase and Bitcoin move forward sooner with Core retaining 90% node share? Or would you rather Core continue to stall, drive more nodes to other clients, and scale later with Core perhaps keeping only 40% node share? [Let's imagine for a moment that those are the only two options]
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
:DI think this comment hits on the fundamental but usually unstated difference between views of Bitcoin governance. Blockstream, as well as their odd denial of conflicts of interest, makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of "teamwork":


EDIT: Heh, beat me to it. [Smiley is supposed to be here, not at the start of the post]
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Great insight by /u/noosterdam:


@cypherdoc

Would you rather Core agree to some block size limit increase and Bitcoin move forward sooner with Core retaining 90% node share? Or would you rather Core continue to stall, drive more nodes to other clients, and scale later with Core perhaps keeping only 40% node share? [Let's imagine for a moment that those are the only two options]
The latter for_sure.

One thing that I've been pleased to see is the price hold up despite the stone walling by Core and a missed opportunity. I'm more confident than ever that 200 is the new 2, so in that sense it's only a matter of time before we go back up. In fact, I think it's already starting.

Thus, it would be worth the wait to deprecate Core.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Great insight by /u/noosterdam:
Discussion continues as /u/eragmus responds:


What I don't get is why 95% would make /u/eragmus happy, by 75% wouldn't. It's like eragmus thinks 95% means only losing 5% of the market cap to a split off "altcoin," whereas 75% means losing 25% of the market cap that way. I suspect in reality this would be something like 0.1% vs. 1%, if even that. The first point eragmus mentions is how people do what is in their best interest. Being among the 25% because "1MB blocks or death!" is not in most people's best interest.

EDIT: /u/Noosterdam responds again, mentioning what I think was @sickpig / @Peter R / @awemany's idea:

 
Last edited:

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
Premature perhaps, but changing the name from dust to something that implies an atomic unit for assets helps people understand its utility. The term "share" of stock is vague (because there are so many types), but its general purpose is understood.
"Token" is used in CS...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Discussion continues as /u/eragmus responds:


What I don't get is why 95% would make /u/eragmus happy, by 75% wouldn't. It's like eragmus thinks 95% means only losing 5% of the market cap to a split off "altcoin," whereas 75% means losing 25% of the market cap that way. I suspect in reality this would be something like 0.1% vs. 1%, if even that. The first point eragmus mentions is how people do what is in their best interest. Being among the 25% because "1MB blocks or death!" is not in most people's best interest.

EDIT: /u/Noosterdam responds again, mentioning what I think was @sickpig / @Peter R / @awemany's idea:

there's only one guy around here who writes as well as Noosterdam and his name doesn't start with an "N". ;)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
That is by no means "all bitcoin does". Removing money from government control is not what I was talking about in the part of my post that you did not quote or address - which was the effect Bitcoin's existence has on government employees, not government subjects.
Not sure what is being argued then. The majority of the post quoted stated that Bitcoin's existence is not compatible with government and only one or the other can exist, and if Bitcoin succeeds then that results in the elimination of government.

That is what I disagree with, government will be smaller by necessity under Bitcoin, but it will not be eliminated. Historical periods under a sound money system with fixed supply demonstrate this.

Yes, the effect on government employees in the quote above all makes sense, no disagreement there.

But it is important to remember that government employees only represent a fraction of what government is (which is scary considering the size of our bureaucracy). The vast majority of government is transfer payments (SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, etc), next is the perpetual war machine (military), then interest on debt payments.

Coming up last at ~7% of total spending is what we consider to be "government", i.e. education, courts, police, roads, infrastructure, NASA, EPA, Labor boards, FTC, etc. This is where most of the "government employees" are, but they only represent ~7% of spending.

All spending will get reduced under a Bitcoin standard, not just on government employees but transfer payments as well. Just because of the shear size of them transfer payments will be reduced more than anything else, and that will effect "government subjects" potentially even more than government employees.
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Not sure what is being argued then.
The existence of Bitcoin poses a (possibly) insurmountable HR problem for governments.

First of all, governments do not have an independent existence apart from their employees. It's more accurate to describe government as a type of behaviour rather than an institution or entity.

People will engage in this behaviour as long as they perceive it to be more personally beneficial than any other option available to them.

Government as an institution needs Bitcoin to be destroyed in order to retain its ability to tax effectively as well as inflate the currency supply to pay for internal and external promises (monetary policy doesn't work if the victims can easily escape to better money).

Each individual who makes up the government, however, personally benefits from having bitcoins. Unless government can offer all its employees a better deal than what Bitcoin can offer them, then it will be unable to take the steps necessary to defend itself because all those steps have to be perform by individuals who don't have an incentive to take them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko and majamalu