If Rootstock succeeds, bitshares would be copied/forked

[complexring]

I believe the term 'federated peg' refers to the usage of the federation protocol for communication with email.  See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Wave_Federation_Protocol

I could be wrong about this ...

[kingslanding]

I would think the federated peg using witnesses would be more secure for bitshares.  Doing SPV proof may not even be necessary for us.  It may be a PR issue if people can't see the parallel benefits of the federated peg and DPOS.  Just as with DPOS, if the federated peg holds for a good length of time before SPV is ready, people will have more faith in it.

[tonyk]

Oh, federated peg. What a wonderful word. Really trustless? @tonyk

and others...

I am talking about this:
"Once Bitcoin adds special opcodes or extensibility to validate SPV proofs as a hard-fork,
and once the new system is proved secure and trust-free, the Federation role as STTPs will
no longer be necessary, and the RSK team will implement the changes to adapt RSK to the
trust-free system."
It talks about sidechains blockstream style... If all the rest of the promises of RootStock are met (super fast, VMs blabla) and it is indeed this great new thing, all BTC has to do is add this operation to their script(arguable not even a hard fork but a soft one) and has trustless sidechain.
They will not do it for us today (even if BTS was ready and willing to use it) but they will do it for their own better BTC (aka RootStock). And then BTS will have to stay with Federated/Witnessed trust system; or be the second (yet another) sidechain using the trustless mode.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

The 2way peg security will first rely in a federation holding custody of bitcoins, and later switch to an automatic peg, when the community accepts the security trade-offs of the automatic peg.

Is it just me, or has BM pretty much already convinced all the big names in crypto development that DPOS is the future, and now they're just trying to slowly come up with a way to acclimate the rest of the bitcoin faithful to this inevitability? Isn't Casper similar to DPOS as well?

[abit]

Oh, federated peg. What a wonderful word. Really trustless? @tonyk

[Erlich Bachman]

Not bad, a million dollar marketing campaign and the best they can come up with is the term "federated"

hmm not bad. Lets adopt it.

BitShares uses a group of "federated" miners too, just like DASH and Rootstock.

See how that works.  Linguistics are open source, so use what works. The industry is adopting standard terminology, and we need to recognize and adopt whenever possible (like now).

What makes their "federated" group more trustworthy than ours ( besides the fact that ours has a much longer history of trustworthiness)?  That's the info I'm looking for.

BitShares - Backed by a democraticly elected group of federated miners since 2014.

See, that has a nice ring to it. Thanks Rootstock!

Wow, I wonder why all the new startups are copying the BitShares "federated" miner model?

DASH Decred Rootstock Lisk
Darkcoin never had federated miners

Actually, the term is "federated servers" I believe. That's what our miners use (or will be using)  right "servers"?

So from now on, remember to always use the term "federated servers" when describing the BTS network.  It's important to be hip, if you want more dev funding.  That's the essence of marketing.

[kingslanding]

There's a difference between Rootstock and the likes of OMNI and XCP.  Both OMNI and XCP have their own coins and independent goals separate from bitcoin.  Rootstock is an extension of bitcoin.  It will have the backing of the bitcoin community.

It's a white paper, vaporware.  We always hear those arguments when a project gets started.  I remember hearing about that for Ethereum and even Bitshares. 
They plan a limited release of their testnet to partners by the end of April and to the public by September.  It may not happen by those dates, but it's highly probable something will come out w/ the amount of money they got.

Rootstock itself will not match Bitshares' performance.  It doesn't have to.  It's going after a different market and has to be just good enough.  All it has to do is prove that sidechains work.  Once that happens, bitcoin's network effect will take over.  It wants Ethereum to do well because it ports into Rootstock's smart contracts.

Once the sidechains flood-gates open, I see people looking at the top 2.0 projects to fork as a quick way to build bitcoin into a new evolved entity.  Great performance will be absorbed.

Sidechains is a ceiling waiting to be broken.

If the white paper turns to be indeed doable and I mean doable within 1 year.... BTS cannot do much really.
Their side chain approach is really trustless! What is the best we (BTS) can offer?
"Sidechain done/depending on Highly trusted group of individuals. Trusted by who?...well trusted by us."

We would have to use the same federated peg as Rootstock.  We could use the witnesses as a start.

I believe their federated group will consist of themselves, miners, VCs, banks, and respected bitcoin devs.  Initially, Rootstock doesn't need to convince you, me, or any decentralized advocate to trust their network.  They only need to convince the people the federated group interacts with.  So Digital Currency Group only needs to convince its high net-worth clients to support it.  Banks their customers.  Miners their pool members.  The majority of users they target (ie. the public) won't even care about decentralization.

As for bitshares, those who believe in DPOS should support our federated group of witnesses.  The trust factor is the same.  Otherwise, we've got some convincing to do.  It would be nice if there were companies interested in bitshares to participate.  As far as I can tell, there are none.  Part of the problem?

We either win big or lose big.  There is no middle ground.

[abit]

There's a difference between Rootstock and the likes of OMNI and XCP.  Both OMNI and XCP have their own coins and independent goals separate from bitcoin.  Rootstock is an extension of bitcoin.  It will have the backing of the bitcoin community.

It's a white paper, vaporware.  We always hear those arguments when a project gets started.  I remember hearing about that for Ethereum and even Bitshares. 
They plan a limited release of their testnet to partners by the end of April and to the public by September.  It may not happen by those dates, but it's highly probable something will come out w/ the amount of money they got.

Rootstock itself will not match Bitshares' performance.  It doesn't have to.  It's going after a different market and has to be just good enough.  All it has to do is prove that sidechains work.  Once that happens, bitcoin's network effect will take over.  It wants Ethereum to do well because it ports into Rootstock's smart contracts.

Once the sidechains flood-gates open, I see people looking at the top 2.0 projects to fork as a quick way to build bitcoin into a new evolved entity.  Great performance will be absorbed.

Sidechains is a ceiling waiting to be broken.

If the white paper turns to be indeed doable and I mean doable within 1 year.... BTS cannot do much really.
Their side chain approach is really trustless! What is the best we (BTS) can offer?
"Sidechain done/depending on Highly trusted group of individuals. Trusted by who?...well trusted by us."

In BTS we trust 

[tonyk]

There's a difference between Rootstock and the likes of OMNI and XCP.  Both OMNI and XCP have their own coins and independent goals separate from bitcoin.  Rootstock is an extension of bitcoin.  It will have the backing of the bitcoin community.

It's a white paper, vaporware.  We always hear those arguments when a project gets started.  I remember hearing about that for Ethereum and even Bitshares. 
They plan a limited release of their testnet to partners by the end of April and to the public by September.  It may not happen by those dates, but it's highly probable something will come out w/ the amount of money they got.

Rootstock itself will not match Bitshares' performance.  It doesn't have to.  It's going after a different market and has to be just good enough.  All it has to do is prove that sidechains work.  Once that happens, bitcoin's network effect will take over.  It wants Ethereum to do well because it ports into Rootstock's smart contracts.

Once the sidechains flood-gates open, I see people looking at the top 2.0 projects to fork as a quick way to build bitcoin into a new evolved entity.  Great performance will be absorbed.

Sidechains is a ceiling waiting to be broken.

If the white paper turns to be indeed doable and I mean doable within 1 year.... BTS cannot do much really.
Their side chain approach is really trustless! What is the best we (BTS) can offer?
"Sidechain done/depending on Highly trusted group of individuals. Trusted by who?...well trusted by us."

[abit]

I read the white paper on Rootstock:
http://www.rootstock.io/#white-paper

I think it has a good chance of succeeding.  It has a key dev on their term via Sergio Lerner and now is getting large funding from the likes of the Digital Currency Group (ie. Barry Silbert):
http://www.coindesk.com/smart-contract-1-million-bitcoin-rootstock/

It's a game changer for bitcoin.  It's solves scalability, enables micro-transactions, gives it turing-complete capabilities, etc.  It would threaten Ethereum because there's no need to go through their network. 

So why would anyone then use Bitshares?  Just create a sidechain based on Rootstock, fork Bitshares and wham!  You just instantly created a bitcoin trading platform that can do 100k txn/sec and has all the other great BTS features.

The only way to head this off is to get a bitcoin sidechain working for bitshares before Rootstock takes hold.  Bitshares has zero network effect right now, so a migration to a copied bitshares w/ bitcoin security wouldn't be hard to imagine.

I know bytemaster believes bitshares should let others get sidechains going, but it would be a mistake if there's no immediate plan for someone to do so.  We've all discussed the positive game-changing effect a bitcoin sidechain would have on bitshares.  But there's now a threat that I think makes it imperative.

Honestly...this is now a white paper.
It is wish list...wish list for all good that can happen to Bitcoin.

Even that.. we better do something sooner than later.

[kingslanding]

There's a difference between Rootstock and the likes of OMNI and XCP.  Both OMNI and XCP have their own coins and independent goals separate from bitcoin.  Rootstock is an extension of bitcoin.  It will have the backing of the bitcoin community.

It's a white paper, vaporware.  We always hear those arguments when a project gets started.  I remember hearing about that for Ethereum and even Bitshares. 
They plan a limited release of their testnet to partners by the end of April and to the public by September.  It may not happen by those dates, but it's highly probable something will come out w/ the amount of money they got.

Rootstock itself will not match Bitshares' performance.  It doesn't have to.  It's going after a different market and has to be just good enough.  All it has to do is prove that sidechains work.  Once that happens, bitcoin's network effect will take over.  It wants Ethereum to do well because it ports into Rootstock's smart contracts.

Once the sidechains flood-gates open, I see people looking at the top 2.0 projects to fork as a quick way to build bitcoin into a new evolved entity.  Great performance will be absorbed.

Sidechains is a ceiling waiting to be broken.

[xeroc]

Rootstock: 10 seconds, 1 cent transaction fee by end of 2016, fake POW, 300 tps at launch
BitShares: 1-3 seconds, 0 cent transaction fee by end of 2016, real POW, 1800 at launch
I am not seeing how they could ever compete with us

[tonyk]

I read the white paper on Rootstock:
http://www.rootstock.io/#white-paper

I think it has a good chance of succeeding.  It has a key dev on their term via Sergio Lerner and now is getting large funding from the likes of the Digital Currency Group (ie. Barry Silbert):
http://www.coindesk.com/smart-contract-1-million-bitcoin-rootstock/

It's a game changer for bitcoin.  It's solves scalability, enables micro-transactions, gives it turing-complete capabilities, etc.  It would threaten Ethereum because there's no need to go through their network. 

So why would anyone then use Bitshares?  Just create a sidechain based on Rootstock, fork Bitshares and wham!  You just instantly created a bitcoin trading platform that can do 100k txn/sec and has all the other great BTS features.

The only way to head this off is to get a bitcoin sidechain working for bitshares before Rootstock takes hold.  Bitshares has zero network effect right now, so a migration to a copied bitshares w/ bitcoin security wouldn't be hard to imagine.

I know bytemaster believes bitshares should let others get sidechains going, but it would be a mistake if there's no immediate plan for someone to do so.  We've all discussed the positive game-changing effect a bitcoin sidechain would have on bitshares.  But there's now a threat that I think makes it imperative.

Honestly...this is now a white paper.
It is wish list...wish list for all good that can happen to Bitcoin.

[luckybit]

Not a chance. Bitcoin is a terrible foundation and no matter what you build on top of it you can't change that. It's just not designed for what they want to do and Rootstock at best will be another Mastercoin/Omni or Counterparty but with smart contracts. It's not going to be a threat to Ethereum or Bitshares 2.0 in terms of performance or smart contracts.

[kingslanding]

I read the white paper on Rootstock:
http://www.rootstock.io/#white-paper

I think it has a good chance of succeeding.  It has a key dev on their term via Sergio Lerner and now is getting large funding from the likes of the Digital Currency Group (ie. Barry Silbert):
http://www.coindesk.com/smart-contract-1-million-bitcoin-rootstock/

It's a game changer for bitcoin.  It's solves scalability, enables micro-transactions, gives it turing-complete capabilities, etc.  It would threaten Ethereum because there's no need to go through their network. 

So why would anyone then use Bitshares?  Just create a sidechain based on Rootstock, fork Bitshares and wham!  You just instantly created a bitcoin trading platform that can do 100k txn/sec and has all the other great BTS features.

The only way to head this off is to get a bitcoin sidechain working for bitshares before Rootstock takes hold.  Bitshares has zero network effect right now, so a migration to a copied bitshares w/ bitcoin security wouldn't be hard to imagine.

I know bytemaster believes bitshares should let others get sidechains going, but it would be a mistake if there's no immediate plan for someone to do so.  We've all discussed the positive game-changing effect a bitcoin sidechain would have on bitshares.  But there's now a threat that I think makes it imperative.