Author Topic: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?  (Read 25968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline noisy

Becoming bitcoin or ethereum sidechain, bitshares could be used for Augur application. That could improve liquidity very much. Any news on starting a sidechain project?

@bytemaster said on latest hangout, that roadmap for next months is:
- finish stealth transaction (backend already deployed, GUI will be available shortly),
- free transactions
- bitshares as sidechain of bitcoin

knowing that free transactions are already mostly implemented by abit, that means, that this should be rather sooner that later :)
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline ivglavas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Becoming bitcoin or ethereum sidechain, bitshares could be used for Augur application. That could improve liquidity very much. Any news on starting a sidechain project?

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Would being a bitcoin / ethereum sidechain reduce bitshares security?

If the value of btc held in multisig by witnesses becomes significant compared to their stake in bitshares, wouldn't they have the incentive to collude and take the btc and other possible coins like eth.

As the holding of BTC increases in the bitshares network so would the value of BTS... therefore the witness pay will also increase.

Aside from this, it may raise the bar for witnesses to have to be more serious participants or increase certain standards of operations and more importantly... have a known reputation of trust. Witnesses now are generally people already know from years past and even I don't know who they all are... which is a good thing in a way... even less likelihood of collusion.

I can tell you as a witness we would never risk our company name being tarnished in such a scandal. If the design is how I think it will be, it will require ALL active witnesses to be participants in the collusion to steal BTC.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline MarkoPaasila

Would being a bitcoin / ethereum sidechain reduce bitshares security?

If the value of btc held in multisig by witnesses becomes significant compared to their stake in bitshares, wouldn't they have the incentive to collude and take the btc and other possible coins like eth.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I was a big BIG fan and proponent of this back in the days.

It is still good...but will be 2 years late when it becomes reality (if it does ever do so).

In the mean time poor design decisions, idiotic Titan and 17 of Agent86's grandeurs ideas on bitAssets had to be tested (unsuccessfully) first for no clear reason... what so ever.

Anyway, bts will go through half ass paying to market makers first (sure to fail experiment in my mind, but who I am to know), before this comes to life.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 04:05:34 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

@bytemaster:

Just wanted to resurrect the sidechain thread with an idea/question.  Since there's risk (perhaps intolerable risk) of collusion  associated with witnesses signing off on transfers to a multi-sig BTC wallet, would it be possible for the BTS blockchain to hold the private key for such a BTC wallet and automatically make transfers out of it (and into a user's individual BTC wallet) whenever a user sells their SIDE.BTC on the DEX?

It is possible to do secure multi-party computation among the witnesses.  Doesn't prevent collusion of witnesses though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_multi-party_computation

So is it not possible for the Bitshares blockchain to hold the private key for the common wallet and automate the transfers so witnesses don't need to be involved?

You want to do it with witnesses since they are elected by shareholders.

There are ways that collusion could be minimized.

I'm trying to get at a way to do this without human involvement, otherwise I think it just won't be trusted.  Plus how would it work, witnesses would have to manually approve each transaction?  I don't see that as a viable solution.  And I think there's a better way.

@bytemaster:
Couldn't you write some code into graphene that would utilize, for example, the blockchain.info API to create a Bitcoin wallet for the DEX, and store the returned private key on the blockchain?  So first the straightforward part: when someone wants to transfer BTC to the DEX, they send BTC to a designated BTC address and then the blockchain automatically issues them the corresponding amount of SIDE.BTC on the DEX.  Then the trickier part, when they are ready to withdraw, they surrender their SIDE.BTC and the blockchain uses the private key it stored previously in order to send the appropriate sum of BTC to the user's designated external BTC wallet.  Is this not possible?   

@abit, do you have any thoughts about this?

It's trusted just fine with how other networks do this.. only they are using a handful of bitcoin exchanges .. far less secure that what we are proposing: http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

This is the only practical means to executing... that's what they came up with with $21 million to work with. You think we can do better? :)

What you described is essentially what the witnesses would be done.. but your recommendation introduces more threats.

It would not be manual it would all be automatic and would have witnesses ensuring that the nodes are operating as optimal as possible for Bitshares vs. other networks that wouldn't care, and might not have any redundancy like we would have with the witnesses.

DPOS means trusting humans to maintain and keep things working right. If they don't, they get voted out.

Multi-sig for bitcoin wallets is limited to a maximum of 15 I believe. If we had all witnesses participating but had an algo that changed the multi-sig assignments in some type of interval configuration it would require basically all witnesses to agree to steel all the bitcoin. Note that this would be far more secure than Liquid.. they got $21m for that.. we should at least get that in added valuation for Bitshares if not more. :)  I have said this all before, maybe it was in Telegram.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare this to Liquid.  Liquid is a federated sidechain of centralized services (BitFinex, Kraken, BTCC, Xapo, Unocoin).  To begin with, the users of these services have to trust those companies.  On top of that, the Liquid sidechain depends on the participating companies trusting each other.  So you really can't compare that to what we're trying to accomplish here.

By the way, it looks like you modified your post before I got a chance to respond.  But since you were wondering why I wasn't taking your explanation at face value, it's because you're not the expert.  So I continue to address @bytemaster with my questions since he IS the expert.  And I asked for @abit's opinion since he is a developer and, for all we know, he could be the one to code this up ultimately.  Surely you can understand where I'm coming from.

In any event, I'm really not sure, but something tells me that what I'm proposing is very much doable.  It would be great if @bytemaster would speak to it specifically.  If it can't be done, please explain why.  Thanks!

Did you get to listen to the hangout this week @tbone ?

Bytemaster described in fairly step by step detail exactly the same process I described as how this would be implemented in Bitshares. That is the feedback you were looking for to confirm.

To recap.. witnesses would act as the multi-sig authority and the UIA counterparty would be backed by the real world counterparty BTC, thus effecting a sidechain.

I am already looking at the costs involved in developing this. Guess we are going to see Sidechain Backed Assets (SBA) this year! :)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

TravelsAsia

  • Guest
As far as I know, wallets are mostly opensource. That means, that we should provide such feature in a pull request.

Thank you for the reply, let me phrase it slightly differently.  Could the wallets profit from BitShares transactions if they add it to their wallet?  With such as small user base, I was trying to figure out if wallet developers would have any incentive to support it. Also, how would that support directly benefit BitShares?

As support of another blockchain in wallet require additional effort from wallet developer I would not be surprised if they will add some additional transaction fee to it. I would not be agains it, as long as they will be relatively low. Additional source of income is a very good reason to develop a support for that :)

It moves us away from the Bitshares vs Bitcoin discussion while broadening our using base. I hope this is discussed in tomorrow's Mumble.

Offline noisy

As far as I know, wallets are mostly opensource. That means, that we should provide such feature in a pull request.

Thank you for the reply, let me phrase it slightly differently.  Could the wallets profit from BitShares transactions if they add it to their wallet?  With such as small user base, I was trying to figure out if wallet developers would have any incentive to support it. Also, how would that support directly benefit BitShares?

As support of another blockchain in wallet require additional effort from wallet developer I would not be surprised if they will add some additional transaction fee to it. I would not be agains it, as long as they will be relatively low. Additional source of income is a very good reason to develop a support for that :)
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

TravelsAsia

  • Guest
As far as I know, wallets are mostly opensource. That means, that we should provide such feature in a pull request.

Thank you for the reply, let me phrase it slightly differently.  Could the wallets profit from BitShares transactions if they add it to their wallet?  With such as small user base, I was trying to figure out if wallet developers would have any incentive to support it. Also, how would that support directly benefit BitShares?

Offline noisy

As far as I know, wallets are mostly opensource. That means, that we should provide such feature in a pull request.
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

TravelsAsia

  • Guest
As a sidechain for Bitcoin, would there be a financial incentive for Bitcoin wallets to add Bitshares?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
+5% for joining up with us.
Looking forward to know how you solved those sidechain issues at blockstream!