Make a MUSE sidechain first?

[captain]

MUSE is bullshit ,why should we develop sidechain for bullshit first

[TravelsAsia]

I would recommend holding off on any additional MUSE development until we are able to produce a MVP (minimal viable product). Love the idea of sidechains, I just want to make sure we have something solid to attract additional interest in the product.

[kingslanding]

A "trusted sidechain" as outlined by the google doc would work if it were initially backed by exchanges or someone like coinbase.  Otherwise, I think it will die on the vine.

Sounds like to get the impact we need from sidechains requires more than $200k (as abit suggests).  It would take a collaborative effort from CNX, Blocktrades, and Blockstream (ie. bitcoin).  And the only way I can see that happening is we get a venture capital infusion from a big investor.  Or there's an agreement from all parties to create a largely funded FBA; could be risky from an investor point of view.

Doing a sidechain on MUSE makes sense if the collaborative effort had some traction or at least an initial agreement to work together were presented.

[abit]

@xeroc I suggest you start a new thread to discuss this idea.  It's a good idea anyway. But imo it's more a political approach rather than a technical one. The biggest challenges imo are:
1. Technically BitShares can hard fork and change any rules. Big bitcoin players obviously don't trust BitShares unless they have certain amount of stake. If they like Bitshares's technology, more likely they'll set up another Graphene based private chain with different initial distribution. Not only BitShares can do good governance.
2. How this approach will BENEFIT CURRENT BITCOIN PLAYERS? I saw nothing for big players, but maybe some for small players. I've already discussed similar idea with Akado and Stan in the CEX help thread. Technically we proposed to list a BitShares token instead of BTC on their platforms.
3. More concerns, I'll write later.

[xeroc]

@abit ..

We can start of with a "trusted sidechain" and once we have "side-chain" voting on MUSE and BTS .. we can upgrade the "consensus" scheme from trust to decentralized voting:
The idea discussed here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BR9RBiCctoBEDKvE-MZh9CiZhutTJgJHDGMfYhe6FCs/edit?usp=sharing   (I'd love to hear your thoughts about this "proposal")
could be implemented today .. and allows for upgrade to 'voting'-based consensus later.

We can start with a MUSE-BTC side chain and later inlcude BTC as well ..

[abit]

This makes sense from a technical point of view.  But how much financial benefits can bts derive from a muse sidechain?

Technically:

To implement any side chain, we need development on BitShares side:
* voting for side-chain signers
* communication between signers:
  -> approval of issue of new asset (due to new deposit)
  -> approval of change of keys (due to changes of voted in signers, or signer change keys)
  -> approval of request of withdrawals (to implement off-side-chain signing)

To implement bitcoin side chain, we need development on bitcoin side:
* activity detecting (check whether there is new deposit)
* change of multi-sig keys (perhaps by moving funds to new address)
* send out funds via multi-sig (for withdrawals, by off-chain signing)

To implement MUSE side chain, we need development on MUSE side:
* activity detecting (check whether there is new deposit)
* change of multi-sig keys (perhaps by proposal to change active authorities of a special account)
* send out funds via multi-sig (for withdrawals, by proposals)
IMO most of above are not too hard to be done by scripting.

So, it need different skill set between implementation of MUSE side chain and bitcoin side chain. But we need common development work on BitShares.


Financial thinking,
* while BlockTrades is working on the bitcoin side, and CNX is working on the BitShares side, other developers can work on the MUSE side, so we'll have more products faster
* if development of the MUSE side need less work than bitcoin side, we can have a MVP (Minimum viable product) earlier, which means more testing/trials/corrections before we have bitcoin side chain, so most probably a better product when ready.

So the final question is, which work is the most difficult and/or time consuming, or say, which one is the shortest plate of the bucket?
* If it's the BitShares side, the benefit of doing a MUSE side chain first would be less
* If it's the bitcoin side, it's practical to have MUSE first.
* I don't think the MUSE side is the shortest plate.

Thoughts?

@bytemaster

[cube]

This makes sense from a technical point of view.  But how much financial benefits can bts derive from a muse sidechain?

[abit]

How about make a MUSE sidechain first? MUSE is also a Graphene based chain, it would be much easier to implement.