0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's good for cryptocurrencies in general that Bitcoin can innovate and remain relevant. Many people have viewed Bitcoin as THE currency of the future, many people believe that Bitcoin's first mover advantage matters and that it will be capable to evolve and adopt cool new features. That is the reason Bitcoin's market cap is that high compared to all newer coins. If Bitcoin gets outcompeted in the long term, that should be because of inherent economic flaws in its philosophy, not because it lacks a killer feature X or because it has slow confirmations, etc. If Bitcoin fails due to lack of innovation, it can seriously undermine public image of cryptocurrencies and give impression that every cryptocurrency becomes obsolete in a few years. It's important to insist that there is place for economically sound alternatives to Bitcoin, it's important to insist that Bitcoin's monopoly is problematic, but explicitly having the goal to become bigger than BTC and make BTC obsolete isn't the best approach.
'...That is the reason Bitcoin's market cap is that high compared to all newer coins..."Actually there is no reason why BTC market cap is ~18x the cap of LTC not ~4x.
Let’s put it simply,In the meat world 99% of the population does not understands what the central banker is talking about. In the crypto world 98% does not know (or do not have the time to research) the protocol. So in this particular venue, we believe when bytemaster tells us ‘side chains will be/are unsecure’ SO!!!We do not need forward/backward or sideway compatibility with anyone… OKSo shut up… and listen…:))))))
First we'll have to wait and see if this can be done, but judging from the reddit posts by Dr. A. Back they are well past that point. He apparently organized a "Bitcoin mansion" with a lot of btc-devs to work out if it could be done. He also seems to be in discussion with a large number of mining-pool operators plus he already has massive funding partners. All in all I don't think it would be wise to bet against this getting implemented.The reddit discussion also mentions that there is no limit to what type of sidechain can be pegged onto the bitcoin-main-chain even other POW/POS ones, but preferred merge-mining over inferior solutions like scrypt if you just want things like faster block-confirmations. Closest analogy to I3 projects would be that bitcoin works like PTS, but without snapshots, so you can freely opt in or out of your stake anytime you want. The lag of getting BTC in and out of the sidechains is only required for liquidity and interchain btc-trading would probably be faster. To me this makes all alt-coins plus things like Ethereum in their current form irrelevant and Bitcoin into a giant Hydra of the crypto-space with transforming heads.I share the concerns of Bytemaster around bitcoins mining centralization, however sidechains also offers an easy way out for bitcoin, as this essentially makes bitcoin entirely liquid and blockchain independent.All in all I think I3 and Bitshares should add the btc-sidechains into their considerations for future (or even short term) projects. I know I3 associates itself with the virtual giants fighting knight, but even chivalrous idealists have to eat. If btc-sidechains can absorb our DACS it might be wise to be doing the absorbing ourselves and offer a more gradual and incentivized way out of bitcoins centralized mining. A bit of strategic and tactical readjustment might be advisable.
Quote from: JoeyD on April 10, 2014, 05:02:46 pmQuote from: liondani on April 10, 2014, 03:58:06 pmQuote from: bytemaster on April 10, 2014, 03:40:43 pmIn effect btc mining pools would own the whole industry and decide which side chains live or die. Such centralization will not be accepted by most. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThats a nightmare! And to be really honest I wouldn't be suprised if for some reason the "most" would accept such centralization at the "end"... because of GREED of course... give them money and you see how ethical barriers will collapse... YES I am not optimistic and all conspiracy theories come to my mind again... I don't think this proposal should be taken lightly and indeed the fear of mining centralization might not be enough of a selling point to put bitcoin to sleep permanently. If this projects succeeds it will probably add huge value to bitcoin, apart from mining-centralization (majority might not even care about that) this would solve just about any critique anyone could have against Bitcoin. I've been reading some comments of Dr. Adam and others on reddit on this topic, but the majority does not seem to believe that this will give too much power to miners. Actually I got the impression that apart from them not really seeing mining centralization as a large problem (because of current generation asics are no longer profitable enough), they also see it as a way to hedge against miner-centralization as well, because the side chain can apparently be in any other POW/POS form and possibly over a way out of the current mining-model. For the short term they consider the danger of 51% attacks negligible given enough confirmation-time for the migration.Dr. Adam even mentions being able to implement things like Ethereum or Ripple as a side-chain without the premine and also lists just about every coin distribution-model and POW/S-model as doable on a sidechain. On top of all this Dr. Adam does have quite a track-record in the cryptocurrency space (inventor of bitcoins POW plus he seems to already have funding, cypherpunk contacts and the attention of the bitcoin core-devs) and thinking back the discussion thread on bitcointalk between Counterparty/Mastercoin and btc-core-devs, the latter were doing their utmost to point people to this solution as well. So I'm expecting quite some developer lifting power from the industry being put behind this idea.Again I don't think this project should be dismissed lightly, this has the potential to be a very big deal. It does not have to be negative either, since this adds value to the btc-AGS-funds as well, provided the supply lasts through the current dip.Lets assume for a second that the government officially blessed Bitcoin as a currency and then grew the blockchain to support. They keep it fair and open and suck a lot of people in. Then they pass a law that requires accounts to be frozen. The major pool operators and mining operations comply because they have all been subverted and because the blockchain size has grown so large and the network effect is so great no one can setup a new pool without being exposed to the regulators.There is no reason to fear blockchain 2.0 because market competition will continue to exist as people compete on efficiency, fees, and privacy. Additionally once our DPOS system is in place and proven we can propose an upgrade to bitcoin to replace Proof of Work. Once we have BitUSD then it doesn't matter how big the chain is as long as it has a minimum amount of support. They are so focused on proof of work they are missing the obvious. The entire premise of their innovation is that we need this large centralized proof of work system to be secure against government... once it becomes clear that you cannot outspend government on hash power things will change and people will flood to DPOS systems. Perhaps bitcoin will upgrade.I still contend that the security vulnerability on the side chains is a non-starter.
Quote from: liondani on April 10, 2014, 03:58:06 pmQuote from: bytemaster on April 10, 2014, 03:40:43 pmIn effect btc mining pools would own the whole industry and decide which side chains live or die. Such centralization will not be accepted by most. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThats a nightmare! And to be really honest I wouldn't be suprised if for some reason the "most" would accept such centralization at the "end"... because of GREED of course... give them money and you see how ethical barriers will collapse... YES I am not optimistic and all conspiracy theories come to my mind again... I don't think this proposal should be taken lightly and indeed the fear of mining centralization might not be enough of a selling point to put bitcoin to sleep permanently. If this projects succeeds it will probably add huge value to bitcoin, apart from mining-centralization (majority might not even care about that) this would solve just about any critique anyone could have against Bitcoin. I've been reading some comments of Dr. Adam and others on reddit on this topic, but the majority does not seem to believe that this will give too much power to miners. Actually I got the impression that apart from them not really seeing mining centralization as a large problem (because of current generation asics are no longer profitable enough), they also see it as a way to hedge against miner-centralization as well, because the side chain can apparently be in any other POW/POS form and possibly over a way out of the current mining-model. For the short term they consider the danger of 51% attacks negligible given enough confirmation-time for the migration.Dr. Adam even mentions being able to implement things like Ethereum or Ripple as a side-chain without the premine and also lists just about every coin distribution-model and POW/S-model as doable on a sidechain. On top of all this Dr. Adam does have quite a track-record in the cryptocurrency space (inventor of bitcoins POW plus he seems to already have funding, cypherpunk contacts and the attention of the bitcoin core-devs) and thinking back the discussion thread on bitcointalk between Counterparty/Mastercoin and btc-core-devs, the latter were doing their utmost to point people to this solution as well. So I'm expecting quite some developer lifting power from the industry being put behind this idea.Again I don't think this project should be dismissed lightly, this has the potential to be a very big deal. It does not have to be negative either, since this adds value to the btc-AGS-funds as well, provided the supply lasts through the current dip.
Quote from: bytemaster on April 10, 2014, 03:40:43 pmIn effect btc mining pools would own the whole industry and decide which side chains live or die. Such centralization will not be accepted by most. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThats a nightmare! And to be really honest I wouldn't be suprised if for some reason the "most" would accept such centralization at the "end"... because of GREED of course... give them money and you see how ethical barriers will collapse... YES I am not optimistic and all conspiracy theories come to my mind again...
In effect btc mining pools would own the whole industry and decide which side chains live or die. Such centralization will not be accepted by most. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thing about blockchain 2.0 is that the # of people benefiting from it are limited. Start looking at the various business models of altcoins and you realize a lot become unworkable. (and to be fair most were unworkable without blockchain 2.0)To allow a certain set of innovations the sidechain's transactions will be not verified by the main btc network. If this is allowed, people will be able to steal equity from other owners of the sidechain.One might think, "but you could do this with regular altcoins".In a normal market, you would have to sell the stolen shares to realize your ill gotten gains. With the pegged system you don't. Just grab your BTC and run. With altcoins you would have to find buyers first.
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/#.U0XZZMcngucIt 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/
@gamey I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Are you talking about security issues on the side chain? I'm not really seeing the difference with someone stealing litecoins and running compared to someone stealing btc and running, only that the latter has happened to me more than once now.
Someone bend the cause-effect space-time probability-cone to our advantage!
One idea for example for bitsharesX might be to try and 2-way-peg bitbtc as a sidechain to bitcoin and allow easy access from bitcoin to bitsharesX.
Quote from: sumantso on April 11, 2014, 09:45:55 amIf this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.Closed source is not an option any more, not in this space. The same argument about time and effort and giving to others could be made from bitcoin-holders perspective as well. You could argue that bitcoin bootstrapped the entire industry, so why should they not reap the benefits. I think that way of thinking is an uphill battle on a slippery slope.
If this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.
Quote from: sumantso on April 11, 2014, 09:45:55 amIf this really works out, innovations will just move to a closed source approach. Why spend all the time and effort to create something useful and give it away to Bitcoin holders.Closed source is not an option any more, not in this space. The same argument about time and effort and giving to others could be made from bitcoin-holders perspective as well. You could argue that bitcoin bootstrapped the entire industry, so why should they not reap the benefits. I think that way of thinking is an uphill battle on a slippery slope. I think energy would be better spent trying to use these developments to our advantage instead of trying to fight it. Maybe we can create an easy onramp to bitshares-DACs via these pegged-sidechains. With some creative thinking these developments could be beneficial to bitshares as much as to bitcoin holders. Thinking big Bytemaster might come up with a sidechain exodus to more rational, decentralized and economical crypto-lands.
All in all I think I3 and Bitshares should add the btc-sidechains into their considerations for future (or even short term) projects. I know I3 associates itself with the virtual giants fighting knight, but even chivalrous idealists have to eat. If btc-sidechains can absorb our DACS it might be wise to be doing the absorbing ourselves and offer a more gradual and incentivized way out of bitcoins centralized mining. A bit of strategic and tactical readjustment might be advisable.
Quote from: sumantso on April 10, 2014, 08:18:15 pmIf the side chain business with 2 way movement really works out, I guess it can be implemented here too which would mean there won't be a different share unit for every different DAC. Who knows, if Bitshares can use the early mover advantage and get big, that unit may rival Bitcoin.Btw, maaku seems to be one of the devs and is answering questions in the counterparty thready I posted earlier. Maybe I3 can poach him Practical you mean it could be implemented on BTS blockchain with the andvantage of DPOS and not POW like BTC so it would be a really strong competitor...The side effect in this case(and not only) is that Bitshares-PTS will be uselles? Price of PTS will decline so we the investors will loose money? Am I missing something?
If the side chain business with 2 way movement really works out, I guess it can be implemented here too which would mean there won't be a different share unit for every different DAC. Who knows, if Bitshares can use the early mover advantage and get big, that unit may rival Bitcoin.Btw, maaku seems to be one of the devs and is answering questions in the counterparty thready I posted earlier. Maybe I3 can poach him
So ... are we screwed?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: wasthatawolf on April 10, 2014, 05:56:19 pmThe only way Bitshares X even works is by having a significant external trade volume of Bitshares themselves to USD, bitcoin, etc. in order to establish the margin requirements for the various BitAssets within the chain. The total value of all BitAssets is limited to a fraction of the total value of Bitshares. I see this is one of the biggest challenges Bitshares will have to overcome because with the volatility of altcoins we currently see in the market, automatic margin calls could be triggered often enough to turn people off to the whole idea. If it was backed by Bitcoin, there would be less volatility and a much higher ceiling for total BitAsset value.So you're right, in a sense, because Bitshares X would essentially become Bitcoin X. I just don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing. One difference here, is that demand for BTS could be driven by demand for the BitAssets, whereas side chains work the other way around.If someone wants BitUSD, he or she will need to buy some or buy some BTS and create some. With side chains, one most likely already has bitcoins, otherwise why all the hoopla?
The only way Bitshares X even works is by having a significant external trade volume of Bitshares themselves to USD, bitcoin, etc. in order to establish the margin requirements for the various BitAssets within the chain. The total value of all BitAssets is limited to a fraction of the total value of Bitshares. I see this is one of the biggest challenges Bitshares will have to overcome because with the volatility of altcoins we currently see in the market, automatic margin calls could be triggered often enough to turn people off to the whole idea. If it was backed by Bitcoin, there would be less volatility and a much higher ceiling for total BitAsset value.So you're right, in a sense, because Bitshares X would essentially become Bitcoin X. I just don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing.
With regard to side chains, per se, if the units issued on the side chains are pegged to bitcoins in whatever proportion, then the side chains have to be justified by their technical merits. That pretty much puts an end to the altcoin market as we know it now.The vast majority of altcoins are just legal replacements for pyramid schemes. Get in early, pump up the price, and hope that you get out before the thing crashes. Some have non-trivial features that set them apart from the rest. Some, like dogecoin take on a life of their own, and no harm done.Put the altclones on sidechains, and their prices are tied to bitcoin prices, removing the whole point of their existence.
They are so focused on proof of work they are missing the obvious. The entire premise of their innovation is that we need this large centralized proof of work system to be secure against government... once it becomes clear that you cannot outspend government on hash power things will change and people will flood to DPOS systems. Perhaps bitcoin will upgrade.I still contend that the security vulnerability on the side chains is a non-starter.
Regardless of the merits of this particular idea, the fact that this idea has seemingly come out of left field is what we should be concerned about.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on April 10, 2014, 01:49:02 pmI see this as hugely beneficial to Bitshares X. If Bitshares X was implemented as a side chain, the functional difference would be that all BitAssets are backed by bitcoin instead of bitshares. Wouldn't this only help strengthen the Bitshares X model by allowing a much lower barrier to entry (direct transfer of bitcoin into the Bitshares X side chain) and a much more stable base asset?What you are suggesting is actually why this could be a threat to Bitshares X. If Bitshares X was implemented as a side chain, it wouldn't be Bitshares X; it would be a competitor to Bitshares X that replicates its features (except those inherent in its POS structure) and has the benefits you speak of.
I see this as hugely beneficial to Bitshares X. If Bitshares X was implemented as a side chain, the functional difference would be that all BitAssets are backed by bitcoin instead of bitshares. Wouldn't this only help strengthen the Bitshares X model by allowing a much lower barrier to entry (direct transfer of bitcoin into the Bitshares X side chain) and a much more stable base asset?
Maybe a dumb question, assuming the Bitcoin 2.0 blockchain did work as described...If Bitshares X wanted to hedge by having a Bitcoin 2.0 linked-blockchain too. Couldn't we take a snapshot of Bitshares X? Then give BTS X holders (Via current private keys) their current BTS X share in the new BTS X Bitcoin 2.0 Blockchain in exchange for Bitcoin dust.Now all Bitshares X holders have their same BTS X share in the Bitcoin 2.0 linked-blockchain so the market can choose and we won't be affected?Of course someone could start a clone from scratch but that is pretty hard as you'd need a development & marketing team, industry connection, + targeted community to compete with BTS X bitcoin 2.0 blockchain that honoured BTS X holders.)
Transaction speed is the deal breaker. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?)
He is not convinced that some other alts have a strong technical ground to build from as they “start a new scarcity race that creates an interoperability silo […] in order to get into to it you have to swap coins.” Thus, Back sees the extensibility as adding “direct support for issued assets, extended smart contracts, all while using Bitcoin itself as the transactional currency.
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
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".
Quote from: bytemaster on April 10, 2014, 12:30:42 amLol 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 TapatalkWhat 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.
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
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?