plan for sidechain?

[R]

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? :/

[JonnyB]

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.

[tbone]

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. 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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.

[mike623317]

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.

[bitcrab]

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,  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:

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?