Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?  (Read 3585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile

I'm interested to hear people's opinions regarding this new development and how it will affect Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs:
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/#.U0XZZMcnguc

It is being suggested on reddit that two-way pegging will be the downfall of alt coins:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/22m063/blockchain_20_let_a_thousand_chains_blossom/

Offline bytemaster

Lol that is a funny project made irrelevant as it still depends on mining.  It will not make bitcoin profitable nor decentralized.   It will add more centralization. 

No details were provided about the two way peg. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Lol that is a funny project made irrelevant as it still depends on mining.  It will not make bitcoin profitable nor decentralized.   It will add more centralization. 

No details were provided about the two way peg. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From what I understand, it allows for experimental chains to be created and backed by the Bitcoin currency.  You can move Bitcoin between these experimental chains and Bitcoin proper without risk of loosing Bitcoin.  The successful chains will extend Bitcoin's functionality or lead the evolution of the Bitcoin protocol itself.  I think that is how it works.

If I understand correctly, this means that any alt coin can be replicated as a side chain, backed by Bitcoin.  I'm wondering if it is possible that Bitshares X or other future Invictus DACs could fall victim to this.  That is, could Bitshares X be replicated and backed by Bitcoin as one of these 2-way pegged side chains?  If so, I guess the benefits of profitability and greater decentralization inherent to Bitshares X would not be replicated since Bitcoin (and its POW structure) is still the backing currency.  However, the true Bitshares X chain would have to compete with the much greater user base of Bitcoin and its only advantage would be its POS base structure since the functionality can be replicated.

Presumably, the threat of this will be enough to slow or stop the development of alt coins that can be two-way pegged.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, but it is making me reconsider my investments in alt projects.  I think it is a good thing, as it will theoretically consolidate the innovation going into all these alts and focus it back into a singular Bitcoin ecosystem.  The strengthening of the Bitcoin protocol will return as the primary incentive for innovation rather than get rich quick schemes.

Of course, there will be projects that the market will decide work better on their own rather than as a Bitcoin side chain.  I wonder what characteristics might distinguish such projects and if the planned Invictus DACs possess such characteristics.  This might be worth discussing

« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 01:57:59 AM by xxeyes »

Offline bytemaster

Transaction speed is the deal breaker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

If they have a solution for this based on sound economics then it may be applicable. 

I will look closer.  Bitcoin will have to move away from pow to survive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

They didn't outline the pegging system, but I suspect it is kind of like bit btc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
The problem is you that you can insulate Bitcoin from the flaws of new linked-blockchains but none of the new blockchains will be insulated from the flaws of Bitcoin. 

So any new Blockchain will have at least Bitcoin's circa 10% current inflation & be exposed to Bitcoin's centralisation of mining problem.

Also won't the ROI of investing in Bitcoin linked-blockchains be extremely limited? Because any value gain will be dispersed among all bitcoin holders, disincentivesing innovation and investment in new projects?

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
It seems to me a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain can only offer investors/users a share of transaction fees while a separate blockchain can offer investors/users that as well as capital appreciation of their stake if the blockchain is popular?

Given that both can be made to interact seamlessly and indistinguishably* to a Bitcoin holding customer this means the separate blockchain should always win, considering that the Bitshares X is also a superior blockchain, I can't see a threat at first glance.

(* The separate blockchain may need to absorb currency conversion cost?)

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
The problem is you that you can insulate Bitcoin from the flaws of new linked-blockchains but none of the new blockchains will be insulated from the flaws of Bitcoin. 

So any new Blockchain will have at least Bitcoin's circa 10% current inflation & be exposed to Bitcoin's centralisation of mining problem.

Also won't the ROI of investing in Bitcoin linked-blockchains be extremely limited? Because any value gain will be dispersed among all bitcoin holders, disincentivesing innovation and investment in new projects?

I'm not sure how it works, but I think that if a side chain is two-way pegged, 1 side chain unit of currency will always equal 1 Bitcoin unit of currency.  Consequently, you would not "invest" in a side chain.  You would move your Bitcoins into one side chain or another to take advantage of its functionality, such as faster transactions or zerocoin-like anonymity.  Perhaps even Bitcoin 2.0 (maybe POS based) could begin as a side chain onto which Bitcoin 1.0 users could migrate as it proves itself stable and superior.

This development appears to enable Bitcoin to act like the TCP/IP of the internet of money.  I expect people will innovate for the purpose of improving/increasing the financial instruments available within the Bitcoin ecosystem, which in turn will increase the value of Bitcoin through network effect.  If I understand correctly, there is no financial risk in moving coins into these side chains as they can always be moved back into Bitcoin proper at a 1:1 ratio.  For this reason, people will support features out of curiosity/necessity rather than as an investment in the system.

Offline xxeyes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Here is a description of how the two-way pegging works quoted from Thorbinator on reddit:

A side chain holds no value of it's own, it uses whatever novel tech it has and the bitcoin market value.

How 2 way pegging works, the short version: magic, you can just use bitcoin or the alt chain interchangably.

The long version quoted:

To maintain the 21m coins promise, you start a side-chain with no in-chain mining subsidy, all bitcoin creation happens on bitcoin chain (as with 1-way peg). Reach a reasonable hash rate. (Other semantics than 1:1 peg should be possible, but this is the base case).

You move coins to the side-chain by spending them to a fancy script, which suspends them, and allows them to be reanimated by the production of an SPV proof of burn on the side-chain.

The side-chain has no mining reward, but it allows you to mint coins at no mining cost by providing an SPV proof that the coin has been suspended as in 2 on bitcoin. The SPV proof must be buried significantly before being used to reduce risk of reorganization. The side-chain is an SPV client to the bitcoin network, and so maintains a view of the bitcoin hash chain (but not the block data).

The bitcoin chain is firewalled from security bugs on the side chain, because bitcoin imposes the rule that no more coins can be reanimated than are currently suspend (with respect to a given chain).

To simplify what they hypothetical bitcoin change would need to consider and understand, after a coin is reanimated there is a maturity period imposed (say same as fresh mined coins). During the maturity period the reanimation script allows a fraud proof to spend the coins back. A fraud bounty fee (equal to the reanimate fee) can be offered by the mover to incentivize side-chain full nodes to watch reanimations and search for fraud proofs.

A fraud proof is an SPV proof with a longer chain showing that the proof of burn was orphaned.


Offline fuzzy

Re: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2014, 11:09:22 AM »
Lol that is a funny project made irrelevant as it still depends on mining.  It will not make bitcoin profitable nor decentralized.   It will add more centralization. 

No details were provided about the two way peg. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is sad to me is that so many people (including someone I highly admire, Adam B Levine) still seem biased toward mining.  This is a HUGE group of potential adversaries in this industry and until the general population understands that mining (especially POW Asic mining) is not necessary and potentially destructive to society and Freedom in general, I am afraid mined coins are going to have a leg up with regard to marketing and buzz. 

Though I wholely appreciate your opinion on this point (and agree with it, btw), I am not so certain we should "lol" about it...because most people who know about crypto are learning about it from people with a vested interest in the status quo of "mining".  I mean, I am certain there are better, more scalable forms of energy-production but due to the vested interests and their monopoly on Oil...we are still largely living 100 years behind schedule with regard to the mass adoption of cheap/free energy and largely devoid of funding for innovation in this space. 
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 11:11:22 AM by fuznuts »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline unimercio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
  • The opportunity of a lifetime comes by every 7 day
    • View Profile
    • Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)
  • BTS: unimercio
Re: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2014, 11:45:37 AM »
Lol that is a funny project made irrelevant as it still depends on mining.  It will not make bitcoin profitable nor decentralized.   It will add more centralization. 

No details were provided about the two way peg. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is sad to me is that so many people (including someone I highly admire, Adam B Levine) still seem biased toward mining.  This is a HUGE group of potential adversaries in this industry and until the general population understands that mining (especially POW Asic mining) is not necessary and potentially destructive to society and Freedom in general, I am afraid mined coins are going to have a leg up with regard to marketing and buzz. 

Though I wholely appreciate your opinion on this point (and agree with it, btw), I am not so certain we should "lol" about it...because most people who know about crypto are learning about it from people with a vested interest in the status quo of "mining".  I mean, I am certain there are better, more scalable forms of energy-production but due to the vested interests and their monopoly on Oil...we are still largely living 100 years behind schedule with regard to the mass adoption of cheap/free energy and largely devoid of funding for innovation in this space.

 +5% Fuzz, well put. Sadly, greed and conflict prevail far too often over reason and cooperation.
Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)

Offline JoeyD

Re: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2014, 12:01:34 PM »
I don't know if any technical details have been divulged, but this solution as described in the interview did not seem to be bound by the limitation of bitcoins' blockchain and mining. It sounded like effectively moving bitcoins freely to and from other blockchain-solutions and allow bitcoins to do everything any alt-coin could possibly do. I got the impression that the blockchains did not need to be merge-mined, but that merge mining would allow instant access to the security of the enormous Bitcoin-network-hashrate, without having to start from scratch.

We'll have to wait for more details, but even with asic-mining in place this does sound like an incredible boost to bitcoins functionality and could make all alt-coins obsolete, even projects like Ethereum will look like a joke in comparison. If transitioning really works as seamless as suggested, it might even provide a smooth way out to a less centralized blockchain, where miners would have to prove their worth to the average bitcoin users.

EDIT
If this project actually works as described in the interview, then not only should everyone get out of all alt-coins asap, but I3/Bitshares will have some really really though competition in the form of bitcoinX(meaning bitcoin-anything).
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 12:16:52 PM by JoeyD »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2014, 12:20:47 PM »
Quote
I am not so certain we should "lol" about it...because most people who know about crypto are learning about it from people with a vested interest in the status quo of "mining". 
+5%

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

Re: What does Blockchain 2.0 mean for Bitshares X and other Invictus DACs?
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2014, 01:41:54 PM »
I did find comfort in the fact that "it will takes 12, 18, or 24 months" to implement any new "moderately risky" changes on the bitcoin blockchain.  With that kind of timeline - they'll be left behind before they can get any consensus to upgrade bitcoin.  In my opinion core devs are still too staunchly conservative when it comes to implementing changes to the code (rightly so) - and I think this will be their downfall.  The free market will provide a solution much faster.

 

Google+