BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on January 20, 2017, 03:51:37 am
-
there has been many discussion about BTS being one sidechain of bitcoin in the past, like https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html), seems the solution is possible with risk.
recently, it is said steem and peerplay is on the progress of sidechain development, I even saw a pic as below:
(http://p1.bpimg.com/523014/95342ce0ee46570a.jpg)
but sounds BTS are not included in the development plan? do not know the details.
and Ronny has said OpenLedger will introduce sidechain in 1-2 years.
some teams around the world like cosmos, antshares are developing something called blockchain interoperability protocol.
BTS definitely need sidechain or other blockchain interoperability solutions to connect to bitcoin and ethereum, but how to plan and organize the development?
-
This is something we should have on a roadmap. I think we absolutely need a sidechain for bitcoin.
Im excited by Chris's enthusiasm in these discussions. This project needs continual development after our period of consolidation and someone to help drive it.
-
If it is 'with risk' then it is not a sidechain. It s a multi-sig gateway. It should be called a multi-sig gateway. Calling it anything else is false advertising in my estimation.
As bitcrab noted.. some projects have claimed they are going to deliver blockchain interoperability in some way. There has been literally tens of millions of dollars of funding going into the research and development of this concept/idea. Still, nobody has done it.
Lets have a degree of realism about the technical possibilities with what is in reach with a virtual zero budget available to Bitshares dev.
Multi-sig gateways, sure, that can all be done right now. Just takes some individuals willing to take the risk and technical difficulties of running one. I for one won't participate in something like this till I have seen it working with considerable transactions. I don't want to be liable for the lose of peoples bitcoins for whatever reason.
So to recap. We are talking about multi-sig gateways here, not sidechains.
-
If it is 'with risk' then it is not a sidechain. It s a multi-sig gateway. It should be called a multi-sig gateway. Calling it anything else is false advertising in my estimation.
As bitcrab noted.. some projects have claimed they are going to deliver blockchain interoperability in some way. There has been literally tens of millions of dollars of funding going into the research and development of this concept/idea. Still, nobody has done it.
Lets have a degree of realism about the technical possibilities with what is in reach with a virtual zero budget available to Bitshares dev.
Multi-sig gateways, sure, that can all be done right now. Just takes some individuals willing to take the risk and technical difficulties of running one. I for one won't participate in something like this till I have seen it working with considerable transactions. I don't want to be liable for the lose of peoples bitcoins for whatever reason.
So to recap. We are talking about multi-sig gateways here, not sidechains.
I'm not sure OP was talking about multi-sig gateways. He referenced Stan's graphic which I do believe was intended to relate to eventual actual sidechains. But I have no idea what Stan sees as the time frame. As for bitcrab's reference to "risk", I have no indication that he meant counterparty risk. He could have meant that. Or, the way I read his comment, he could have meant the risk of things going horribly wrong. Kind of like what you cited.
Anyway, I do agree that sidechains are probably a ways off. If we want to be serious about them, we should probably be developing worker talent so we'll have more people capable of helping to implement it when the time comes.
In the meantime, I still like the idea of some kind of multi-sig gateway implementation. I'm sure there are risks. But everything has risks. Could multi-sig gateway have more risk than stealth, for example? I dunno probably maybe. :)
-
If it is 'with risk' then it is not a sidechain. It s a multi-sig gateway. It should be called a multi-sig gateway. Calling it anything else is false advertising in my estimation.
As bitcrab noted.. some projects have claimed they are going to deliver blockchain interoperability in some way. There has been literally tens of millions of dollars of funding going into the research and development of this concept/idea. Still, nobody has done it.
Lets have a degree of realism about the technical possibilities with what is in reach with a virtual zero budget available to Bitshares dev.
Multi-sig gateways, sure, that can all be done right now. Just takes some individuals willing to take the risk and technical difficulties of running one. I for one won't participate in something like this till I have seen it working with considerable transactions. I don't want to be liable for the lose of peoples bitcoins for whatever reason.
So to recap. We are talking about multi-sig gateways here, not sidechains.
+5%
-
Gridcoin's interested in a sidechain! http://forum.blockchainbunker.com/d/5-which-blockchain-should-sidechain-first/9
There was once a quote of $100k to get the sidechain tech developed, is this a realistic quote & if a worker proposal was created would its development be possible? I'll vote for it! :)
Would sidechains make EBAs obsolete though? :/
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
The best way to substantially mitigate this risk is probably to have known entities as witnesses. For starters, below is a list of 10 entities that might participate. And there may be other entities that I'm not thinking of, especially in China. @bitcrab?
The remaining slots could be filled by known entities outside the graphene ecosystem and/or a few of the most prominent, publicly-known witnesses within the ecosystem.
Anyway, I wonder if Dan has secretly been working on a solution behind the scenes. It wouldn't surprise me. Anything announced along these lines would be a pretty big development.
1. Steemit Inc.
2. OpenLedger
3. BlockPay
4. Transwiser
5. Blocktrades
6. Peerplays
7. BitKapital
8. BitGate
9. Chainsquad
10. Busy.org
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
The best way to substantially mitigate this risk is probably to have known entities as witnesses. For starters, below is a list of 10 entities that might participate. And there may be other entities that I'm not thinking of, especially in China. @bitcrab?
The remaining slots could be filled by known entities outside the graphene ecosystem and/or a few of the most prominent, publicly-known witnesses within the ecosystem.
Anyway, I wonder if Dan has secretly been working on a solution behind the scenes. It wouldn't surprise me. Anything announced along these lines would be a pretty big development.
1. Steemit Inc.
2. OpenLedger
3. BlockPay
4. Transwiser
5. Blocktrades
6. Peerplays
7. BitKapital
8. BitGate
9. Chainsquad
10. Busy.org
+5%
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
The best way to substantially mitigate this risk is probably to have known entities as witnesses. For starters, below is a list of 10 entities that might participate. And there may be other entities that I'm not thinking of, especially in China. @bitcrab?
The remaining slots could be filled by known entities outside the graphene ecosystem and/or a few of the most prominent, publicly-known witnesses within the ecosystem.
Anyway, I wonder if Dan has secretly been working on a solution behind the scenes. It wouldn't surprise me. Anything announced along these lines would be a pretty big development.
1. Steemit Inc.
2. OpenLedger
3. BlockPay
4. Transwiser
5. Blocktrades
6. Peerplays
7. BitKapital
8. BitGate
9. Chainsquad
10. Busy.org
You can stop wondering.. he wasn't. Have you read the recent steemit roadmap? The word bitshares and all the other words you listed above other than steemit do not appear in that document that is supposed to layout the next year for steem.
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
The best way to substantially mitigate this risk is probably to have known entities as witnesses. For starters, below is a list of 10 entities that might participate. And there may be other entities that I'm not thinking of, especially in China. @bitcrab?
The remaining slots could be filled by known entities outside the graphene ecosystem and/or a few of the most prominent, publicly-known witnesses within the ecosystem.
Anyway, I wonder if Dan has secretly been working on a solution behind the scenes. It wouldn't surprise me. Anything announced along these lines would be a pretty big development.
1. Steemit Inc.
2. OpenLedger
3. BlockPay
4. Transwiser
5. Blocktrades
6. Peerplays
7. BitKapital
8. BitGate
9. Chainsquad
10. Busy.org
You can stop wondering.. he wasn't. Have you read the recent steemit roadmap? The word bitshares and all the other words you listed above other than steemit do not appear in that document that is supposed to layout the next year for steem.
If it was on the roadmap, I would have referred to that, don't you think? So yeah, obviously he's not working on it officially. I said behind the scenes. Who knows what he's tinkering with in his free time. I'm pretty sure you don't know any more than anyone else.
-
I'm pretty sure you don't know any more than anyone else.
I wouldn't go so far .. BunkerChain labs is working closely with BlockTrades who has two very high profile devs for graphene ..
Pretty damn sure will PeerPlays have a positive effect on Bitshares .. as has Steem(it)
-
have a positive effect on Bitshares .. as has Steem(it)
By what measure, pray tell?
-
I'm pretty sure you don't know any more than anyone else.
I wouldn't go so far .. BunkerChain labs is working closely with BlockTrades who has two very high profile devs for graphene ..
Pretty damn sure will PeerPlays have a positive effect on Bitshares .. as has Steem(it)
I agree that Peerplays will likely have a positive effect on Bitshares. That's partly why I own a nice bunch. Of course, I own even more Steem. And I've said a few times that Steem is one of the best things that has happened to Bitshares, the full effect of which we have not yet seen. But that's all beside the point. In my previous post, I was simply refuting the conclusion that Steemit's roadmap has anything whatsoever to do with what what Dan may be tinkering with in his spare time.
-
@bytemaster has stated a possible solution, in which top 15 witnesses do MULTI-SIG to relevant bitcoin transactions, however "In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds."
in my words the "risk" refer to this, I don't know whether there are ways to avoid this kind of risk.
The best way to substantially mitigate this risk is probably to have known entities as witnesses. For starters, below is a list of 10 entities that might participate. And there may be other entities that I'm not thinking of, especially in China. @bitcrab?
The remaining slots could be filled by known entities outside the graphene ecosystem and/or a few of the most prominent, publicly-known witnesses within the ecosystem.
Anyway, I wonder if Dan has secretly been working on a solution behind the scenes. It wouldn't surprise me. Anything announced along these lines would be a pretty big development.
1. Steemit Inc.
2. OpenLedger
3. BlockPay
4. Transwiser
5. Blocktrades
6. Peerplays
7. BitKapital
8. BitGate
9. Chainsquad
10. Busy.org
in China there are DACPLAY, and a planned project YOYOW(you own your words) which is also based on graphene.
-
Anyone has interest can check Steemit's 2017 roadmap: https://steem.io/2017roadmap.pdf
The section "Steem Blockchain Feature: Multi-Chain Parallelism" is related to sidechains.
-
[/quote]
in China there are DACPLAY, and a planned project YOYOW(you own your words) which is also based on graphene.
[/quote]
DACPLAY is alive?!
Who's working on it?
Where are they located?
What have they accomplished?
When will they release something?
Why are they hiding?
-
have a positive effect on Bitshares .. as has Steem(it)
By what measure, pray tell?
Their all based on Graphene. If one develops a new feature like stealth, sidechains, warp bubble, etc. Bitshares can incorporate it at a fraction of the cost. How cool is that?
-
have a positive effect on Bitshares .. as has Steem(it)
By what measure, pray tell?
Their all based on Graphene. If one develops a new feature like stealth, sidechains, warp bubble, etc. Bitshares can incorporate it at a fraction of the cost. How cool is that?
I think the 5% sharedrop has a more measurable effect. Someone made a post talking about the value a while back:
https://steemit.com/peerplays/@steempower/peerplays-drops-usd600-000-usd-of-value-into-the-bitshares-ecosystem
Mind you that was based on the market rate at that time of roughly $12-$13 per Peerplays. Our market closed 4X from that later.. effectively providing $2.4 million of value to BTS holders... but we will see just how much it turns out to be.
Taking from other projects depends on licensing.
-
Anyone has interest can check Steemit's 2017 roadmap: https://steem.io/2017roadmap.pdf
The section "Steem Blockchain Feature: Multi-Chain Parallelism" is related to sidechains.
seems the fabric architecture is to solve the problem of scalability, performance, fault isolation, and modularity, however what Bitshares now need is to interoperate with bitcoin and ethereum blockchain.
-
"Chain Interoperability " by Vitalik http://upyun-assets.ethfans.org/uploads/doc/file/f8ee4c6b670747e095ef00d8ac39eb67.pdf?_upd=Chain_Interoperability.pdf (http://upyun-assets.ethfans.org/uploads/doc/file/f8ee4c6b670747e095ef00d8ac39eb67.pdf?_upd=Chain_Interoperability.pdf)