Let's Talk Bitcoin! #228: Sidechains with Adam Back and Andreas Antonopoulos - "Andreas sits down once again with Father-of-Hashcash Adam Back, this time to deep dive into Sidechain Elements: what it is, how it works and what it means."
Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Thanks to all who submitted questions for Shiv Malik in the GAINS AMA yesterday, it was great to see so much interest in Data Unions! You can read the full transcript here:
Gains x Streamr AMA Recap
https://preview.redd.it/o74jlxia8im51.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=93eb37a3c9ed31dc3bf31c91295c6ee32e1582be Thanks to everyone in our community who attended the GAINS AMA yesterday with, Shiv Malik. We were excited to see that so many people attended and gladly overwhelmed by the amount of questions we got from you on Twitter and Telegram. We decided to do a little recap of the session for anyone who missed it, and to archive some points we haven’t previously discussed with our community. Happy reading and thanks to Alexandre and Henry for having us on their channel! What is the project about in a few simple sentences? At Streamr we are building a real-time network for tomorrow’s data economy. It’s a decentralized, peer-to-peer network which we are hoping will one day replace centralized message brokers like Amazon’s AWS services. On top of that one of the things I’m most excited about are Data Unions. With Data Unions anyone can join the data economy and start monetizing the data they already produce. Streamr’s Data Union framework provides a really easy way for devs to start building their own data unions and can also be easily integrated into any existing apps. Okay, sounds interesting. Do you have a concrete example you could give us to make it easier to understand? The best example of a Data Union is the first one that has been built out of our stack. It's called Swash and it's a browser plugin. You can download it here: http://swashapp.io/ And basically it helps you monetize the data you already generate (day in day out) as you browse the web. It's the sort of data that Google already knows about you. But this way, with Swash, you can actually monetize it yourself. The more people that join the union, the more powerful it becomes and the greater the rewards are for everyone as the data product sells to potential buyers. Very interesting. What stage is the project/product at? It's live, right? Yes. It's live. And the Data Union framework is in public beta. The Network is on course to be fully decentralized at some point next year. How much can a regular person browsing the Internet expect to make for example? So that's a great question. The answer is no one quite knows yet. We do know that this sort of data (consumer insights) is worth hundreds of millions and really isn't available in high quality. So With a union of a few million people, everyone could be getting 20-50 dollars a year. But it'll take a few years at least to realise that growth. Of course Swash is just one data union amongst many possible others (which are now starting to get built out on our platform!) With Swash, I believe they now have 3,000 members. They need to get to 50,000 before they become really viable but they are yet to do any marketing. So all that is organic growth. I assume the data is anonymized btw? Yes. And there in fact a few privacy protecting tools Swash supplys to its users. How does Swash compare to Brave? So Brave really is about consent for people's attention and getting paid for that. They don't sell your data as such. Swash can of course be a plugin with Brave and therefore you can make passive income browsing the internet. Whilst also then consenting to advertising if you so want to earn BAT. Of course it's Streamr that is powering Swash. And we're looking at powering other DUs - say for example mobile applications. The holy grail might be having already existing apps and platforms out there, integrating DU tech into their apps so people can consent (or not) to having their data sold - and then getting a cut of that revenue when it does sell. The other thing to recognise is that the big tech companies monopolise data on a vast scale - data that we of course produce for them. That is stifling innovation. Take for example a competitor map app. To effectively compete with Google maps or Waze, they need millions of users feeding real time data into it. Without that - it's like Google maps used to be - static and a bit useless. Right, so how do you convince these big tech companies that are producing these big apps to integrate with Streamr? Does it mean they wouldn't be able to monetize data as well on their end if it becomes more available through an aggregation of individuals? If a map application does manage to scale to that level then inevitably Google buys them out - that's what happened with Waze. But if you have a data union which bundles together the raw location data of millions of people then any application builder can come along and license that data for their app. This encourages all sorts of innovation and breaks the monopoly. We're currently having conversations with Mobile Network operators to see if they want to pilot this new approach to data monetization. And that's what even more exciting. Just be explicit with users - do you want to sell your data? Okay, if yes, then which data point do you want to sell. Then the mobile network operator (like T-mobile for example) then organises the sale of the data of those who consent and everyone gets a cut. Streamr - in this example provides the backend to port and bundle the data, and also the token and payment rail for the payments. So for big companies (mobile operators in this case), it's less logistics, handing over the implementation to you, and simply taking a cut? It's a vision that we'll be able to talk more about more concretely in a few weeks time 😁 Compared to having to make sense of that data themselves (in the past) and selling it themselves Sort of. We provide the backened to port the data and the template smart contracts to distribute the payments. They get to focus on finding buyers for the data and ensuring that the data that is being collected from the app is the kind of data that is valuable and useful to the world. (Through our sister company TX, we also help build out the applications for them and ensure a smooth integration). The other thing to add is that the reason why this vision is working, is that the current data economy is under attack. Not just from privacy laws such as GDPR, but also from Google shutting down cookies, bidstream data being investigated by the FTC (for example) and Apple making changes to IoS14 to make third party data sharing more explicit for users. All this means that the only real places for thousands of multinationals to buy the sort of consumer insights they need to ensure good business decisions will be owned by Google/FB etc, or from SDKs or through this method - from overt, rich, consent from the consumer in return for a cut of the earnings. A couple of questions to get a better feel about Streamr as a whole now and where it came from. How many people are in the team? For how long have you been working on Streamr? We are around 35 people with one office in Zug, Switzerland and another one in Helsinki. But there are team members all over the globe, we’ve people in the US, Spain, the UK, Germany, Poland, Australia and Singapore. I joined Streamr back in 2017 during the ICO craze (but not for that reason!) And did you raise funds so far? If so, how did you handle them? Are you planning to do any future raises? We did an ICO back in Sept/Oct 2017 in which we raised around 30 Millions CHF. The funds give us enough runway for around five/six years to finalize our roadmap. We’ve also simultaneously opened up a sister company consultancy business, TX which helps enterprise clients implementing the Streamr stack. We've got no more plans to raise more! What is the token use case? How did you make sure it captures the value of the ecosystem you're building The token is used for payments on the Marketplace (such as for Data Union products for example) also for the broker nodes in the Network. ( we haven't talked much about the P2P network but it's our project's secret sauce). The broker nodes will be paid in DATAcoin for providing bandwidth. We are currently working together with Blockscience on our tokeneconomics. We’ve just started the second phase in their consultancy process and will be soon able to share more on the Streamr Network’s tokeneconoimcs. But if you want to summate the Network in a sentence or two - imagine the Bittorrent network being run by nodes who get paid to do so. Except that instead of passing around static files, it's realtime data streams. That of course means it's really well suited for the IoT economy. Well, let's continue with questions from Twitter and this one comes at the perfect time. Can Streamr Network be used to transfer data from IOT devices? Is the network bandwidth sufficient? How is it possible to monetize the received data from a huge number of IOT devices? From u/EgorCypto Yes, IoT devices are a perfect use case for the Network. When it comes to the network’s bandwidth and speed - the Streamr team just recently did extensive research to find out how well the network scales. The result was that it is on par with centralized solutions. We ran experiments with network sizes between 32 to 2048 nodes and in the largest network of 2048 nodes, 99% of deliveries happened within 362 ms globally. To put these results in context, PubNub, a centralized message brokering service, promises to deliver messages within 250 ms — and that’s a centralized service! So we're super happy with those results. Here's a link to the paper: https://medium.com/streamrblog/streamr-network-performance-and-scalability-whitepaper-adb461edd002 While we're on the technical side, second question from Twitter: Can you be sure that valuable data is safe and not shared with service providers? Are you using any encryption methods? From u/ CryptoMatvey Yes, the messages in the Network are encrypted. Currently all nodes are still run by the Streamr team. This will change in the Brubeck release - our last milestone on the roadmap - when end-to-end encryption is added. This release adds end-to-end encryption and automatic key exchange mechanisms, ensuring that node operators can not access any confidential data. If BTW - you want to get very technical the encryption algorithms we are using are: AES (AES-256-CTR) for encryption of data payloads, RSA (PKCS #1) for securely exchanging the AES keys and ECDSA (secp256k1) for data signing (same as Bitcoin and Ethereum). Last question from Twitter, less technical now :) In their AMA ad, they say that Streamr has three unions, Swash, Tracey and MyDiem. Why does Tracey help fisherfolk in the Philippines monetize their catch data? Do they only work with this country or do they plan to expand? From u/ alej_pacedo So yes, Tracey is one of the first Data Unions on top of the Streamr stack. Currently we are working together with the WWF-Philippines and the UnionBank of the Philippines on doing a first pilot with local fishing communities in the Philippines. WWF is interested in the catch data to protect wildlife and make sure that no overfishing happens. And at the same time the fisherfolk are incentivized to record their catch data by being able to access micro loans from banks, which in turn helps them make their business more profitable. So far, we have lots of interest from other places in South East Asia which would like to use Tracey, too. In fact TX have already had explicit interest in building out the use cases in other countries and not just for sea-food tracking, but also for many other agricultural products. (I think they had a call this week about a use case involving cows 😂) I recall late last year, that the Streamr Data Union framework was launched into private beta, now public beta was recently released. What are the differences? Any added new features? By u/Idee02 The main difference will be that the DU 2.0 release will be more reliable and also more transparent since the sidechain we are using for micropayments is also now based on blockchain consensus (PoA). Are there plans in the pipeline for Streamr to focus on the consumer-facing products themselves or will the emphasis be on the further development of the underlying engine?by u/ Andromedamin We're all about what's under the hood. We want third party devs to take on the challenge of building the consumer facing apps. We know it would be foolish to try and do it all! As a project how do you consider the progress of the project to fully developed (in % of progress plz) by u/ Hash2T We're about 60% through I reckon! What tools does Streamr offer developers so that they can create their own DApps and monetize data?What is Streamr Architecture? How do the Ethereum blockchain and the Streamr network and Streamr Core applications interact? By u/ CryptoDurden We'll be releasing the Data UNion framework in a few weeks from now and I think DApp builders will be impressed with what they find. We all know that Blockchain has many disadvantages as well, So why did Streamr choose blockchain as a combination for its technology? What's your plan to merge Blockchain with your technologies to make it safer and more convenient for your users? By u/noonecanstopme So we're not a blockchain ourselves - that's important to note. The P2P network only uses BC tech for the payments. Why on earth for example would you want to store every single piece of info on a blockchain. You should only store what you want to store. And that should probably happen off chain. So we think we got the mix right there. What were the requirements needed for node setup ? by u/ John097 Good q - we're still working on that but those specs will be out in the next release. How does the STREAMR team ensure good data is entered into the blockchain by participants? By u/ kartika84 Another great Q there! From the product buying end, this will be done by reputation. But ensuring the quality of the data as it passes through the network - if that is what you also mean - is all about getting the architecture right. In a decentralised network, that's not easy as data points in streams have to arrive in the right order. It's one of the biggest challenges but we think we're solving it in a really decentralised way. What are the requirements for integrating applications with Data Union? What role does the DATA token play in this case? By u/JP_Morgan_Chase There are no specific requirements as such, just that your application needs to generate some kind of real-time data. Data Union members and administrators are both paid in DATA by data buyers coming from the Streamr marketplace. Regarding security and legality, how does STREAMR guarantee that the data uploaded by a given user belongs to him and he can monetize and capitalize on it? By u/kherrera22 So that's a sort of million dollar question for anyone involved in a digital industry. Within our system there are ways of ensuring that but in the end the negotiation of data licensing will still, in many ways be done human to human and via legal licenses rather than smart contracts. at least when it comes to sizeable data products. There are more answers to this but it's a long one! Okay thank you all for all of those! The AMA took place in theGAINS Telegramgroup 10/09/20. Answers by Shiv Malik.
Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: First of all, can you have a brief introduction about yourself as well as about Chromia? Henrik_hjelte, Sergelubkin Henrik Hjelte: Hello. My name is Henrik Hjelte. I am Co-Founder and CEO of Chromia. I have more than 30 years of experience in programming and a degree in Economics from Uppsala University. BTW economics and computers = blockchain, so finally found a job that fits me. I was introduced to the blockchain by the leader of the colored-coins project Alex Mizrahi in 2013 Colored coins project was a very influential thing It was the first way for user created tokens bolted on to the only blockchain at the time (almost) bitcoin We started ChromaWay 2014, with Or Perelman too, to explore if the world was interested in “tokens” and those kind of applications We worked with enterprise blockchain for some time, but now we are focused on Chromia, a new public platform for mainstream decentralized applications using relational blockchain technology. Ok, maybe I should tell something about Chromia and not myself too. Chromia is a better blockchain for building decentralized Apps. better because it follows the “normal worlds” way of managing data. A little history: I found a text/description to paste: Chromia is a brainchild of ChromaWay. ChromaWay has a long record of delivering pioneering projects around the world. We issued Euros on the Bitcoin blockchain with LHV bank, allowed investors to invest in startups in a wholly decentralized way with Funderbeam, digitized the title transfer process with the Swedish land registry, and mediated the green bond market. ChromaWay’s core team created the world’s first protocol to issue tokens already in 2012, when blockchain was called “bitcoin 2.0”. Then ChromaWay introduced the relational model to enterprise blockchains with a consortium database called Postchain. Now Postchain is going public as the foundation for Chromia, a better blockchain for building decentralised Apps. Chromia is a new public blockchain based on the idea of integrating traditional databases, Relational databases with blockchain security. Chromia is a general purpose blockchain with full smart contract capabilities, just that it is a lot easier to code, even complex applications. You code with an easy to learn new programming language that combines the power of SQL and normal languages but makes it secure in a blockchain context. Up to 1/10 the code-lines vs other blockchains. If you don’t believe me, check this blog (later, stay in the chat): https://blog.chromia.com/reasons-for-rell-compactness/ The aim of Chromia is to combine relational databases, which exist in every kind of organization, with blockchains. We want to provide a platform for our users to develop totally decentralized apps securely. Our goal is for Chromia to be seen as the number one infrastructure for decentralized applications. Think about it: blockchain is about managing data (in a shared context). And… What do we use to manage data? A Database! Serge: Sure! My name is Serge! And I work in Chromia marketing department. Also, I help coordinate various projects inside the company My background is in Economics and Marketing Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 1️⃣ DApp is currently mainly concentrated in the field of games, and its life cycle is basically short, just like the Crypto Kitty is only hot for a while, how to dig the application of DApp in more fields and how to improve the utilization rate of DApp? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: Good one, let me answer Gaming is quite a challenging target because good UX is expected, it needs to be fast, responsive, etc. If we can do that, then we can also do all sorts of other stuff. Also, it lets us experiment with things without a lot of hassle, it’s easier to get users, and so on. It’s also a growing niche within blockchain. You can check our latest game, Mines of Dalarnia https://www.minesofdalarnia.com We also have Enterprise projects already, for example Green Assets Wallet https://greenassetswallet.org/about that already launched on the first Mainnet version called Bootstrap Net,we also have https://capchap.se built on our tech, more projects like non-profit review platform Impactoria, public land registries, medical projects and so on Also don’t forget about our fully decentralized social network/forum that is live already on the testnet https://testnet.chromunity.com. Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 2️⃣ How will dapp face the world change after the epidemic? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Henrik Hjelte: Nobody can say for sure, but maybe people will tend to be online more than offline, so demand on online products and dapps as well will increase. I just came in from an internal demo of a secret project we do, and it can be seen as a way to hang out online (a bit cryptic answer) There are also interesting use cases of dapps in the medical field. For example, we participated in the world-wide hackathon Hack for Sweden. Where our submission was to create an app on Chromia blockchain that increases the coordination between countries and hospitals especially during the hard time and COVID19. Chromia wants to help the European Union (and the world, but we saw problems in the EU…) and its citizens to provide transparency over the necessary medical and protective devices and appliances of which we see shortage during this emergency crisis. You can watch our promo here https://twitter.com/chromaway/status/1247557274337447938?s=20. For me it was a fun Hackathon too because for once I got the opportunity to code… I told everyone else I will not do any bossing… We try to continue this path on medical applications a bit. Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 3️⃣ DApps are still not directly embedded in mobile phones like Apps at this moment, and DApps have also been flooded with bet content. How can guests increase the use of DApps and lower the threshold for using DApps? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: The answer is — better User Experience. We believe that in order for a DApp to be usable and become more widely accepted it has to feel like a normal App. A DApp needs to have quick transactions, scale well & shouldn’t require users to pay for each transaction. This is something that is possible now with using Chromia. It’s an extremely exciting time since we are going to see a new generation of DApps. On top of that, we think that we might have an ace coming up. We have built a game to demonstrate the powers and possibilities of Chromia. A little bit about the game: In Mines of Dalarnia (https://www.minesofdalarnia.com), players get to explore the vast expanses of interplanetary treasure mines. With an innovative Dalarnia Token system, players can purchase virtual mining plots, and put them up for rent into the community, allowing for real-estate tycoons to earn more Tokens. Mining plots can also undergo their own upgrades, making them more lucrative to explore, as well as a hot property for rental by miners. The game takes advantage of these NFT-based tokens to securely track exchanges, and provide a sense of ownership and wealth to players as they grow their mining and resource empire. Watch our trailer https://youtu.be/bDXKOp1Asqw and sign-up for the TestNet on the website! Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 4️⃣ Many practitioners think that the main reason for restricting the development of DApp is “incomplete infrastructure”. How effective is the current “cross-chain” and “side-chain” solution? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: Our infrastructure resembles Alibaba Cloud, so a DApp developer just goes and deploys his DApp’s blockchain into it, it’s easy. Also our language Rell https://rell.chromia.com/en/maste is more robust than any other blockchain programming language.Or Azure or AWS Rell combines the following features:
Relational data modeling and queries similar to SQL. People familiar with SQL should feel at home once they learn the new syntax.
Normal programming constructs: variables, loops, functions, collections, etc.
Constructs which specifically target application backends and, in particular, blockchain-style programming including request routing, authorization, etc.
We want people to join our channels such as telegram, twitter, email also our decentralized forum https://testnet.chromunity.com and participate in discussions
We want people to try our dapps such as Mines of Dalarnia
We want to get feedback and understand the most important issues people care about Chromia and the blockchain industry in general
We want to get more developers building on top of Chromia
LBTS: What was your motivation for creating RELL and not use other languages? What benefits? Why name it RELL also? Henrik Hjelte: We have a private/federated relational blockchain called Postchain, and it allows SQL. But that can work in a small environment when you know all parties, and if you are really careful in checking code. But not for a more secure, distributed on the web setup, so we had to make it more secure (Deterministic, statically typed). In the process, we also took the opportunity to make it cool and nice. Also: it is simply not possibly to use evm, jvm, or web assembly. We need/want a database in the bottom. Postgresql is our virtual machine. You do not reimplement that…. 10+ years codebase…. Lee: Being part of the gamer community, I would like to know what you would think about collaborating with a MOBA, RPG or Arcade game or some kind of project? Henrik Hjelte: We are already collaborating with some smaller studios. For bigger fish, we want to show them what is completely unique and visionary with Chromia, and we think we need various examples. So, first arcade game MoD (linked above) is one example, it is not the full potential or anything but a start. In this summer, krystopia 2 a puzzle game from Antler Interactive will be released. What is even cooler is the “demo project” we do together with them, where we will show how a mutliplayer game with real blockchain features will work. I just saw it an hour ago and was blown away OH, and there is another studio releasing something very cool. Full logic on chain strategy game. Chain of Alliance. oyibo pepper: Do you encourage HACKATHON programs for intending Developers to test their skills and build on RELL Can you explain more about CHROMIA AMBASSADORS PROGRAM, CAN I BECOME AN AMBASSADOR Serge: Yes, you can, but you will need to change your avatar 🤣 Seriously, we are growing our Chromians community if you want to become one please ping our admins in Chromia telegram group. Also, we are planning virtual hackathons soon, please subscribe to stay updated Infinite Crypto: Since the Chromia project is currently working on the Ethereum blockchain ERC20 standard! But we know that there are a lot of scalability issues with Ethereum, so why would you choose the Ethereum blockchain over other scalable blockchains? Do you have any plans for Mainnet launch of Chromia? Henrik Hjelte: ETH is just used in a pre-phase for tokens. We will have our own mainnet tokens interchangable with ETH. Oyinbo pepper What’s CHROMIA SSO and SDK, how can I get started Henrik Hjelte Both are 3 letters. That is what they have in common. SDK = software development kit, check docs on https://rell.chromia.com SSO = single sign on. A unique UX improvement. You approve an app in your wallet (vault) with super ease. no need to remember codes sso: https://blog.chromia.com/chromia-sso-the-whys-and-the-whats/ We have a fundamentally different model from bitcoin and ethereum and the likes. The blockchain is not run by anonymous computers in basement and student dorms across the world. We have more of known identities, so 51% attacks is protected not by PoW/PoS but other consensus. Please see our whitepaper. Note that we are not noobs when it comes to this, our CTO Alex has published papers in academic journals on consensus etc. from 2013, and done several important ideas for blockchain. Sidechains we think he was first with, tokens too. Sheron Fernando: Is there any plan to makes partnership with local cryptocurrency developers from each country to make $CHR usage more worldwide? Serge: Yes, we are looking for cooperation with more external developers. Send me a message if you are interested in developing something on Chromia. Stella: What are the underlying problems in the Dapps today that can be solved with the Chromia protocol? Serge:
Scalability — on Chromia your dapp can have unlimited numbers of users thanks to parallel scaling
Easiness of use — you don’t need external wallets, no need to buy crypto to pay for gas etc
Cost — in general to deploy the dapp and to use the dapp
Marcel Lagacé: Why build this platform? What is Chromia mission? What are the most prominent features of the platform? Can you clarify the use case for this feature? Henrik Hjelte: We build the platform to fix the problems with blockchains, that we ourselves have experienced since 2014 (before ethereum existed). LBTS: Can you tell us about Chromia developers? How motivated and experienced are they to always deliver the best products? Henrik Hjelte: I can tell you that we recruit developers that are really good, from all parts of the world. Vietnam has been a hub because we found many good, so in Ukraine. How can we say “we have so good developers”? First one thing that is a bit different is that we are pretty experienced in leadership team of development. I do not code much anymore since I’m a CEO. But I do have now over 30 years of experience. Got published and was payed when I was 15. First full-time professional developer job at 18. Have released open-source projects used by 10: s of thousand developers. And Alex, our CTO is Extremely good. That is why I recruited him to my old startup 2006 or so… So: we have experience to sort out good developers from bad. Marcel Lagacé: Does Chromia staking model is different from other staking platform?? What are the beneficial advantages of chromia staking system? Serge: The main difference is that we have independent Providers, entities that are not connected. These serious players are exchanges, data centres, professional staking companies. They provide a backbone of the ecosystem and host dapps. Like Amazon servers in the cloud. They cannot have stake bigger than the maximum thus they can’t control the network. This is probably the main difference with classic DPoS networks Nguyen Duy Bao: A lot of people will want to know what the strength of Chromia is but I want to know the weaknesses and problems Chromia faces ? How do you plan to solve it? Henrik Hjelte: A weakness I guess is weak compared to “competition”. And there are some blockchain projects that got crazy amount of funding. So how can we compete with that, when they can hire more developers for example? Well here is what experience comes into play: More developers does not always increase productivity a lot, it is diminishing returns. You can see many large projects, with 100 of developers fail miserably with no results. And actually, sometimes true with marketing spend too. It is generally good with money, but if you are a bit clever you can compete also on marketing with less money than your competition. Please follow Chromia on Social Media: Website: https://www.chromia.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/chromia FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/teamchromia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/chromia Telegram: https://t.me/hellochromia Decentralized Social network Chromunity: https://testnet.chromunity.com Free-to-Play Blockchain Game Mines of Dalarnia: https://www.minesofdalarnia.com
As promised, here is an at a glance overview of the main questions and answers we went through in the session! Q:
I am new to Dune but been involved in Crypto for 5 years... during my initial research the 1st thing that pops up is the co founder selling up early doors... this must of made it hard for the dune team from the start? Do you think you have and will gain the confidence and support from the future investors looking at the project?
A: As you know, the core KPI or element to value a network is TX/users/customers. We're just starting to work on this specificly for the next few weeks and months, and we're sur as TX will grow, interest and believers in DUNE will follow. Q:
what is planned for maketing after bilaxy?
A: Indeed! Project is 10 months old now, as you know, the first few months, we’e been focusing on the core features and tooling. Now that we’re listed on Bilaxy, we’re ready to go forward on the marketing side. - We’re about to push our new branding and website, entirely revisited (few hours.) - Next weeks, we’ll announce our first official client, a French large corporate. - We also are about to push in several days our Dune Open Lab, which will be a nice way to demonstrate how to code on dune, in a gaming way. Many actions are planned, going forward in this direction : grow the Community, grow the user base, enroll more customers! Q:
Does some press articles are planned to promote DUNE ecosystem? We rarely see such articles related to DUNE.
A: Of course, we are working on that. Currently, we have worked a lot on the technical part, and press is not very interested in technical articles, but with more and more businesses getting interested in Dune, we hope to see more such papers soon Q:
Can we get an update on the roadmap for next 3/6 month
A: On the technical side, we are still focusing on 3 things: accessibility, security and interoperability, they are the 3 constants of Dune... Accessibility, with a lot of tooling coming for Dapps developers around Love and support of Solidity, Security with allowing private transactions (Dune now supports permissioning and KYC for private chains) and Interoperability, with support for multiple native coins, needed for Bitcoin native support... of course, Solidity support is also part of interoperability Q:
At that time how many projects/startups are already working on developing their project using DUNE ecosystem?
A: Yes, few startups already, and we've been starting to push DUNE protocols at our startups at the GARAGE. Few use case are already appearing (real estate, asset transfer, traceability, gaming, defi) Q:
What did the Dune team think of the 1st day trading on today’s exchange?
A: We're happy to be listed, Bilaxy is the first, and not the least. We think its a good start and we're happy to people can finally have more liquidity and access to enter the project. It's still very early but its the first day of a new Journey, very encouraging. Q:
marketing/communication comparing to the whole budget? Do we still have enough to keep development safe? Is there a written paper about the whole budget?
A: For now the majority of the fund were allocated to the technical part, not marketing at all. As you know, we're an indie project, and did not receive a big ICO or tons of funding. We'll grow step by step, by on boarding customers and helping them build their product. A small part of the OLAB team is dedicated to this, and we're also invoicing corporations whom need our help in the development. Which allows us to slowly but surely re-deploy this revenues into core development and marketing action. Therefore, we wont need to raise any kind of VC money in the long run. We prefer have a sustainable approach on that matter. Q:
Can we expect multicore support in Dune "soon"?
A:indeed, there is some work on multicore support for OCaml, and it might have an impact on Dune at some point. Yet, multicore support might still take some time to be fully working in OCaml, the runtime is now well tested, but the libraries too have to evolve... then, we will think about using it in Dune 📷 there is already some multicore support now with the independent validator that is running as an external process Q:
At that time, how many people are working at full time for the DUNE ecosystem?
A: We're 9 on the technical side at OLAB (you guys know them) and on the business/strategy we just went to zero to 3 📷 So 12 people working full time for now. + help from many of our partners, including the Garage team (dozen of people). Q:
Is there opened position on Dune team? If yes, what are there?
A: Dune is not hiring directly, but on the technical part, Origin Labs is always looking for devs with high interests in blockchains Q:
Is any partnership with other projects or so maybe in progress?
A:very open to work with other team. We've been chatting with 2/3 large protocols for some partnership. We're still in the discussion phase. If you guys have any ideas that can fit, please don't hesitate to go ahead propose, we'll be carefully listening for sure. Thanks ! Q:
Any update on the foundation and governance
A: we are still designing the online governance system, it's still planned for end of Q3 2020 Q:
I know that "the other chain" is working hard on zkSnarks, which will naturally come over to Dune. But what technical improvements to the core protocol can we look forward to, that are going to be specific to Dune?
A: of course, we are watching the progress of the zkSnarks branch, we even published a paper on Medium on some testing that we did, with some support that we had to do in dune-client for that. But zkSnarks does not solve all the privacy issues, so we have recently started a branch to have fully-private transactions, i.e. full transactions that only a few nodes can decipher, something close to what Quorum has Q:
Have you already target several enterprises which could use dune? And have you already let them heard about dune or not yet?
A:Yes several, but we basically put that on hold the next few weeks, and i'm actually personally chatting again with these folks this week and the next few ones. Now that we're ready to onboard customers and officially listed on Bilaxy, it will be one of my main focus on a daily basis. Happy to be introduced in any companies who might have needs to explore on that path, even tho I've already several strong lead on that matter. Q:
Hello, good afternoon, seeing that blockchain gambling is having a lot of growth, will it be possible to create a dune-gambling site? I had an idea to put together bets at a manual level, but it doesn't give much transparency. It would be good to take advantage of it and incorporate dune in that area. What do you think about it?
A: Definitely a very interesting topic, but for legal reasons, we wont be able, as DUNE, to push ourselves these kind of dApps. But, in our future learning center (published in few days) we'll have some technical example of contracts made for this use case. So people will be able to use them and learn how to develop theirs. Q:
When fund are supposed to be unlock for dune team? How to prevent a dump?
A:all the contracts are locked until September 2023, and but starting in September 2020, 1/36 of the tokens will be unlocked every month. That should make dumping quite difficult for the founders... if they really want to Q:
I heard about some industry which were in a huge difficulty because of covid-19. Is dune already having direct impacts?
A: of course, we have been impacted, it's a bit more difficult to work collaboratively on the project, but it's ok thanks to Slack/Telegram/Discord. Of course, we had some leads that wanted to use Dune that have been postponed, but not abandoned. Q:
this might be a dirty question. what "problems" does Dune want to solve?
A: A high level answer is that our goal is to make smart contract with many digital-assets, with the highest security standard and with a huge community of developers to build around. Q:
not sure if this question has been asked before, but what's Dune's current burnrate, and at this rate for how many months can development continue? (without additional revenues)
A: we decided from the beginning not to do an ICO, but to rely on working with users both to fund the project and to inject needs and ideas in the project, so there is not a budget that we have to spent, just users that we need to find all the time, I think it's quite a sane way of working Q:
I just love the idea of having Dune as a bitcoin sidechain bringing proper smart contracts and dev tools to bitcoin.
A: Definitely our goal! Thanks for the support Q:
Does dune team members 100% on dune or they have other job?
A: the team is 100% focused on Dune and projects on Dune Q:
How does Dune plan on differentiating itself from Tezos from a market positioning perspective?
A: From the beginning, we think that Tezos is not accessible, so that's what we have been focusing on in the last months, making Dune provide the same guarantees in terms of security, but with a much more friendly environment. We talk with a lot of people who are quite happy to know that, because they were very frustrated with Tezos Q:
More important then exchange Is mass adoption what plans are there to drive dune into everyday use Threw professional marketing(so people here about it). Also threw real life use cases. There have been alot of articles and tweets but what efforts are being made to increase exposure?
A: as I've answer earlier, we think marketing is nice when THE main KPIs of success is there. If you build a consumer product, you're main KPIs are DAU, MAU, retention, Revenues, MRM if you're in a SAAS business. IN the Blockchain world, as you know, its more about TX and usage. This is why we'll be focusing more on building great relations with our customers (companies, small or large), in order to increase TX. Once we have real usage and customers, we'll make it known by being louder. Q:
What are the technical challenges behind getting higher level languages (like JS, Python, Go, etc) to work as smart contract code? I find that Love is still very "ocaml-ish" in nature, which makes the learning curve hard for adaptation. I ran through the CryptoZombies tutorial for Ethereum, and it was easy to understand/tweak/hack since Solidity is basically just a stripped down JS.
A: the main challenge is determinism, i.e. the interpreter of the language must run exactly identically on all nodes to have a consensus on the next block, that's almost impossible with most languages (Python, Go, etc.), only Fabric does that... but because they don't have the consensus. We are aware Love is only a step between Michelson and Solidity, but it keeps all the safety aspects for provable smart contracts, that's the reason why we are now working on Solidity native support in Dune Q:
Where do you see Dune in 10 years?
A: Very hard to tell... This technology is very early, this market too. Hard to plan this far. Sure thing is that i personally see Blockchains platform being more used, mostly in this COVID period... Why ? cause growth for large corporation will be hard ion the next few years. making more revenue or getting more customers will be tough in a crisis time. As we all know, Blockchains are great to automatize and therefore reduce cost and human interactions in processes.... Once you've said that, you can imagine our dream is that DUNE become one of the most use smart contract platform, thanks to its fiabilty and security of its code base. We have strong connection in the French market, and growing connections in the Eu Market. There lot of room to grow in these areas 📷 lets go!
https://preview.redd.it/hiu3umys1j451.png?width=560&format=png&auto=webp&s=a918610c070d00bce65edc4dea52ca2d22b3aabe The Blockchain industry is continuously progressing since its inception. The consensus mechanism is the core of a decentralized ecosystem that helps it to achieve consensus in the network. Till now, many consensus methods have been invented and implemented to achieve consensus within a blockchain system. I am writing a series of articles on different consensus mechanisms with a detailed explanation of their advantages and disadvantages over each other. I have already covered PoW and PoS, so here in this article, I will focus on PoA. The PoW consensus algorithm used by Bitcoin is considered a reliable and secure consensus mechanism but it doesn’t support scalability. As a result, it restricts the performance of the Bitcoin network along with its transaction speed. The major disadvantage of this method is that it requires high energy consumption and system resources which are needed to solve the complex mathematical puzzles. With some more features, Proof of Stake came into existence which offers better performance than PoW. There are several PoS projects which are still under development so what new features it can offer and how much it can deal with the drawback of the existing consensus mechanism is depends on the success rate of future projects. Then there is another consensus mechanism called Proof of Authority which is the enhanced version of PoS. It supports better performance by allowing more transactions per second. Now let’s discuss it in detail. What is Proof of Authority? The Proof-Of-Authority (PoA) is a consensus method where a group of validators is already chosen as the authority. Their task is to check and validate all the newly added identities, validate transactions, and blocks to add to the network. To ensure efficiency and security in the network the validator group is usually kept small (~25 or less).
Proof of Authority (PoA) is an enhanced version of Proof of Stake (PoS) where the validator’s identity is used as a stake in the network.
A node needs to complete a mandatory process to authenticate itself to receive the right to generate new blocks. Validators need to register themselves in the public notary database using government-issued documents with the same identity that they have on the platform. Thus, Blocks and transactions are verified by participants, whose identity is already verified and acts as an authority of the system.
With the power under a limited number of users, PoA consensus can be adopted as a solution for private networks rather than public blockchains.
PoA was proposed by a group of developers in March 2017 (coined by Gavin Wood) as a blockchain-based on the Ethereum protocol. It was developed with the idea to solve the problem of spam attacks on Ethereum’s Ropsten test network. The new network was named Kovan, the main test network that all Ethereum users use today. Pre-Requisites for Proof of Authority Consensus The PoA consensus algorithm is usually based upon the following criteria: · Validators need to disclose and confirm their identities by giving government-issued documents. · The standard procedure for verifying the identity of validators. · Complex and robust criteria to define a validator so that they can put his reputation at stake and commit to a long-term alliance. Advantages of PoA consensus As compared to other consensus methods, PoA offers the following advantages: · High transaction rate. · High-performance hardware is not required. · PoA networks are very scalable as compare to PoW blockchains · Less power extensive. · Low transaction fees. · Sequentially block generation with fixed time interval by authorized network nodes. This increases transaction validity speed. · No communication is required to reach the consensus between the nodes. · Network operation is independent of the number of available genuine nodes. · The chance of a node to become a forge depends upon both its stake and overall holding. Drawback · Proof-of-Authority based networks lack in decentralization. · PoA validator's identities are visible in the network. · PoA does not guarantee censorship resistance. Practical Implementation PoA consensus algorithm can be applied in various fields and industries to achieve high throughput ranging from supply chains to banking sectors. PoA is considered as an effective and reasonable solution along with cost-saving benefit. Below is the list of projects which has adopted PoA : · Ethereum’s test net Kovan built on the Parity's PoA Protocol · PoA Network by the Proof of Authority, LLC. (an Ethereum sidechain) · The VeChainThor platform. Conclusion Every consensus method, be it PoW, PoS or PoA has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. But if we talk about PoA particularly, it somehow compromises in the decentralization area to achieve scalability and throughput. Proof-Of-Authority can, therefore, be treated as a better option for a centralized solution because of its efficiency and less power consumption property. Read More:Mastering Basic Attention Token (BAT) Follow me on Twitter
tBTC is a trustlessly Bitcoin-backed ERC-20 token. The goal of the project is to provide a stronger 2-way peg than federated sidechains like Liquid, expanding use cases possible via today’s Bitcoin network, while bringing superior money to other chains. This repo contains the Solidity smart contracts and specification.
tbtc.js provides JS bindings to the tBTC system. The tBTC system is a bonded, multi-federated peg made up of many deposits backed by single-use BTC wallets to enable their value’s corresponding usage on the Ethereum chain, primarily through the minting of a TBTC ERC20 token whose supply is guaranteed to be backed by at least 1 BTC per TBTC in circulation.
2020-04-01 tBTC incorporates novel design features that carry important implications for users. This piece explains four of these: TDT receipts, multiple lot sizes, Keep's random beacon, and threshold signatures. TBTC Deposit Token (TDT) The TBTC Deposit Token (TDT) is a non-fungible token that is minted when a user requests a deposit. A TDT is a non-fungible ERC-721 token that serves as a counterpart to TBTC. It represents a claim to a deposit's underlying UTXO on the Bitcoin blockchain. TBTC deposits can be locked or unlocked. A locked deposit can only be redeemed by the deposit owner with the corresponding TDT. Each TDT is unique to the deposit that mints it and carries the exclusive right for up to a 6 month term to redeem the deposit.
also this paragraph addresses creating wallets with the created tokens
Random Beacon for Signer Selection The Keep network requires a trusted source of randomness to select tBTC signers. This takes the form of a BLS Threshold Relay. When a request comes in to create a signing group, the tBTC system uses a random seed from a secure decentralized random beacon to randomly select signing group members from the eligible pool of signers. These signers coordinate a distributed key generation protocol that results in a public ECDSA key for the group, which is used to produce a wallet address that is then published to the host chain. This completes the signer selection phase.
my take away from this is that by using side chains that a trustless, not fedeared like liquid bitcoin sidechains sold by blockstream. it uses NFT erc-721 tokens as representation of the bitccoin UTXO from the bitcoin blockchain, store it in a wallet and mint it into tBTC. given this is all smart contracts generating wallets and minting the tBTC, it does away with the need of a centralised party to provide the funds of BTC to create a wrapped erc20 version on ethereum and so should be trustles. perhaps erc20 token trading is the way to go forward. just requires wrapping of exisitng tokens. this looks promising for DeXs and DeFi if it happens. also opens the possibiliy of multicollateral Dai (MCD) using tBTC in addition to eth and BAT. though personally i think btc should not be used in MCD. any thoughts on this? or if my understanding is off. thanks edit: got some more info from px403
I talked to James a bit about tBTC in Osaka, so I have a vague idea of how it works, so I might be able to explain it in a somewhat coherent way. Basically, the magic here is they reimplemented Bitcoin's SPV as an Ethereum smart contract, effectively letting them query the current state of the Bitcoin network, including validity of payments, directly in contract. Using this, they built an auction system where people can at any time claim ETH by paying BTC, or claim BTC by paying ETH. By design the spread is wide, so this isn't actually intended to be a high volume exchange, but what you do get is a pretty good price oracle. From the price oracle, I think there were doing some Maker style CDPs or something, where people could lock up their BTC on the Bitcoin network to redeem tBTC, and any of the locked BTC could be reclaimed by burning tBTC or something. Sorry it's not a complete picture of what's going on, but I think that's the general gist of what they're doing.
Addressing the erroneous arguments of: 1. Good projects should be able to fund themselves, otherwise they are doing something wrong 2. The IFP funding plan is not free market. 3. It is a tax 4. It necessarily supports lazy projects and inefficiencies
Everyone calls it a tax. This is something miners are choosing to do. You can argue it's not fair to miners who disagree, but they are by definition a minority, and the fact is, a majority of miners can choose how the protocol is set up, which inevitably affects a minority of dissenting miners. They choose how they want to spend their rewards and what kind of coin they want to have, and, what projects they want to support. ABC is currently the most used. The reason it's different than a public school tax is that if the projects the miners support become lazy, money-hungry, and most importantly, unproductive, then no doubt they will not continue the practice. A better analogy would not be a mandatory tax on the public to fund public schools, but a mandatory tax on all parents of children using schools in a school district, voted on by at least a 2/3rds of a majority of parents. A tax that can and would be able to be changed, voted on, and altered by the parents if they felt their childten were not getting a good education at a particular school. The reason that 2/3rds of parents would be forcing the other 1/3rd of parents to pay as well, even if they didn't want to, is because of the Free Rider problem. In mining, anything you don't do to be competitive, means other miners have an advantage over you that can make you obsolete. Think of it like a parent who pays lots of money to support a good school, and that school has no restrictions on who can enroll and use its services. So, parents not paying anything can also send their kids to this good school, get a great education for free, and not pay anything. But in mining, it isn't just fellow parents, it is your competition. And the money your competition isn't spending on software development, is money they can use to invest in better miners, more hashpower, etc., and eventually, make you obsolete. To put it another way, miners who voluntarily fund software development are punished, because they give the benefits of that software to their competitors, who aren't voluntarily funding it. Also, this IFP proposal is a free market proposal. A majority of miners choosing what software they support and disallowing a minority of their competitors to use it for free at their expense to compete with them, is, logical, economically rational, and by definition, part of the free market. The difference is, their incentives are aligned with the protocol succeeding and being used as a global peer-to-peer cash system, whereas before, Blockstream's incentives were on Bitcoin not working and for them to offer a solution in the form of unnecessary sidechain solutions. Which brings me to my next point: We already had a different free market solution to software development, and it was called Blockstream. They did what was economically, albeit not morally, correct. The only difference is their incentives were not aligned with ours. This is why Amaury talks about game theory so much, and why he has said many times that another Blockstream is the biggest threat to BCH. It all has to do with funding. That is why this IFP proposal is being proposed. Now, the idea that a 2/3rds voting mechanism is fair, when it can so easily be manipulated by ill-intentioned BTC and BSV miners, is a fair and good reason alone, not to support this proposal as is. Another is the fact that there are so many users who may leave if this proposal is rammed down their throats, which I think would have terrible consequences. Remember: Users are part of the free market too, and I hope miners consider this carefully. I do not support the proposal as is for many reasons, many of which I haven't listed here. But let's understand the arguments properly.
Top 7 unique, high-potential cryptocurrencies of 2019 that are actually innovating the space
Right now, the top 20 has 2 forks of Bitcoin, Tether, an exchange's token, Ethereum Classic, and a few other projects that make this space look far less serious than it really is. On the other hand, you have many great projects out of the top 20 with huge potential going forward. The purpose of this post is to discuss the cryptocurrencies that I believe are exciting, different, and already have (or are extremely close to having) a working project. These are the projects that actually keep my faith alive in crypto among all the other BS out there. I'm hoping to outline a few projects you know, as well as some smaller ones. I will exclude Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP from this list, as everyone knows them already and what they do. This is NOT MEANT TO BE AN ALL-INCLUSIVE LIST - that means I'm definitely missing some projects. However, these are some of the projects I believe will make seriously large contributions to the space going forward. 1 - Nano. Reddit already shills the hell out of this coin, and it's for good reason. Nano is the single fastest and cheapest (100% free) P2P digital currency in the space, period. There's something to be said about sending somebody 50 Nano and them receiving EXACTLY 50 Nano, not 49.999 or something similar. Nano is an actual innovation in the space, with a very different codebase than other coins. It uses a block lattice (instead of using a blockchain), which is an incredible invention, and is reminiscent of the kind of innovation that ETH first offered for blockchain applications in 2015 - but for digital cash. Nano feels like what Bitcoin should have been from Day 1. Download the mobile app/create a web wallet and send some back and forth between the two - you'll understand why people are so bullish on this coin once you've tried it out for yourself. 2 - Monero. If any coin most clearly resembles the fungibility and privacy of using physical cash, it's Monero. It's the only major coin that is fully private by default, 100% of the time. The recent updates over the past few months have made Monero extremely cheap and fast to use, and if you haven't tried it out, I'd highly recommend it (MyMonero's web wallet is excellent https://wallet.mymonero.com). There's no denying this coin's potential to shape the space in the future as the top privacy coin. Monero has also proven to be highly resistant to bear trends, holding its price better than nearly every other top 40 coin in the last bear market. Lastly, the team is extremely competent and makes real innovations to this coin - between making transactions fully private, cost reduction/speed upgrades, and forking away from ASIC mining, this team has proven that they are little talk, ALL action, and committed to constantly improving this cryptocurrency.
Augur - This decentralized betting platform was one of the first Ethereum dapps ever planned, and took nearly 3 years to come to fruition. It is one of the most well-made, useful dapps running on Ethereum right now and has real users making markets every single day. You can bet on pretty much anything using Augur, and it's actually completely decentralized - meaning no third parties or governments who are unhappy with the content or types of bets being placed - can shut this dapp down. It does have a few issues for sure, but I am confident that they are minor and will be resolved in time as this market continues to mature.
IOTA - No matter what you think of this coin, IOTA's tangle is undeniably different. It's DAG-like technology is refreshing to see in a space where 98% of coins are just clones/forks of other coins - even if it doesn't work the way it should yet. It's possible that the removal of blocks and instead creating a tangle of transactions where every node in the network helps to power future transactions could allow for scaling beyond what current blockchains offer.
BitTorrent - I really hesitated to list this one. Do I agree with the way Justin Sun markets and overhypes every small meeting or minor project development? Of course not. However, there is no denying that this token will expose a TON of new users to cryptocurrency for the first time - arguably more than any other dapp token. BitTorrent, the application, is already being used by millions of users, and there's no denying that. This is a rare situation and no other cryptocurrency dapp has anywhere near the user count that this BitTorrent has. While I don't love Tron in general... it is largely an Ethereum clone with few advantages other than added hype...BTT is guaranteed to at least see some real-world usage and it might be good to own a few tokens.
Upfiring - If you like the idea that BitTorrent is putting forth (rewarding seeders), Upfiring is that exact idea - but their dapp is literally already out and nobody knows about it yet. I hesitated to list this project due to the low market cap, but it just might be one of the most useful dapps out there and one of the best uses of smart contracts. The dapp is awesome - super sleek and easy to use. In terms of high potential projects, this one is huge with around a 2 million USD market cap and really could explode at any time imo. You can download their dapp right now and share files on the blockchain, set a price in UFR for your files and earn crypto when others download them. Torrenting is one of the areas that I believe crypto will make a big impact in, since rewarding seeders is an excellent use-case to incentivize file-sharing. With an ATH of 40 million, it has reached 20x the current market cap before, so the price and hype level is currently low.
Major projects to watch out for due to being overvalued or other significant red flags (please don't downvote this post if you disagree with these - instead, let us know why you disagree in the comments): 1 - Litecoin. I'd certainly agree it should be in the Top 50 due to its fame status, but the #4 position is ridiculously high for a coin like this. Put simply, there is simply no major use case for this coin. If you wanted to use something as cash, Nano and even Bitcoin Cash are arguably both better options. At least Bitcoin serves as the standard for markets on exchanges. Remember that the creator of this coin has literally sold all of it as well - while arguably a smart move on his part, it's something to keep in mind. 2 - Binance Coin. Regardless of the fact that it is Binance, and Binance is great, this coin's entire value is based on a 100% CENTRALIZED business. That's a big deal. This means if something ever happens to Binance, for whatever reason, BNB's value will directly be affected as a result. In addition, a 4.5 BILLION dollar market cap for an exchange token is just a ridiculous market cap in general, even if it is Binance. Props to Binance for making this token so successful, though. 3 - Stellar. This is a big one, and I know I'm going to take some heat for listing this, so let me clarify. I really like what Stellar is doing with payments, for sure, but one thing that makes that all null and void from an investment standpoint - Stellar's team owns over 80% of the entire Stellar coin supply. Let that sink in for a second. 19,331,690,041 XLM is circulating among every single Stellar holder, while the team themselves holds 85,710,809,041 XLM. People tend to ignore this fact for some reason, but it's unfortunately a huge deal and requires that you put a ton of trust in Stellar's team not to casually sell millions of dollars worth of their XLM whenever they want more money. How would you feel if Vitalik owned 400,000,000 ETH? That's the same ratio to what the Stellar team owns. There's also been a ton of sketchy things that have happened with the team selling off millions of dollars worth of coins in 2017/early 2018 - you can search those in the search bar to read up on those incidents where users here tracked those transactions. Lastly, Stellar is a fork of Ripple. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily, but it's something to keep note of. 4 - Bitcoin SV. Yeah, it's pumping right now. Who cares, so are lots of coins. Ignore it, and maybe it will go away. This coin once again serves no real purpose and has no place being the #8 cryptocurrency with how many great projects are sitting below it. 5 - Ethereum Classic. This coin has already been 51% attacked SUCCESSFULLY, and it's value has gone up since then. In addition, no changes have been made to the coin to prevent such an attack in the future, and none are planned. No hard forks will happen to improve this coin, ever...that's because Ethereum Classic's main value proposition is immutable and irreversible transactions, Ironic - because the 51% attack showed that transactions on this chain are actually the exact opposite of this. Obviously, this coin should be avoided. And before you ask, why did I leave out... -Cardano: Interesting project but too far away from releasing their smart contracts to mention in this post. In addition, market cap is extremely high for not having a working product out yet -Tron: A hyped-version of Ethereum with few differences. Not necessarily bad, but not innovative enough to mention from a technological standpoint. I won't comment on their marketing tactics... -Vechain: It remains to be seen whether this use-case will ever play out using a public blockchain like this with real businesses. Certainly one to keep an eye on, but as of right now it's not being used on any sort of large scale -Qtum: Still has yet to find a real niche over projects like Ethereum, Tron, and EOS -EOS: Raised billions of dollars in their ICO but their platform still has many issues. There are some decent developments like Everipedia on it, but overall I decided to leave it out due to once again, not offering anything THAT innovative to the space, and the lack of decentralization (EOS team can freeze transactions) I'll update the top list as well if anyone provides me with good projects that I may have missed out on here!
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]
Part 1 It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now. Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in. The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures. The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set. BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution. The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:
Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures. The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills. Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc. There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light. Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
I haven't seen this posted in a while. If you've never read this post, you really should. Edit: Screwed up the formatting. See other comments. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
Subscribe to the Let’s Talk Bitcoin Show, or Subscribe to The LTB Network for free, and never miss an episode again! Shownotes for Let’s Talk Bitcoin Episode 99 – Sidechain Innovation My name is Published on September 30th, 2018 by adam Click to download audio version On Todays Episode of Let’s Talk Bitcoin… Adam B. Levine, Stephanie Murphy and Jonathan Mohan are joined by returning guest Paul Sztorc for a look at the past, present and future of Sidechains and the now-on-testnet “Drivechain” token recovery mechanism. Apple Store Robbery […] On Todays Episode of Let's Talk Bitcoin... Adam B. Levine, Stephanie Murphy and Jonathan Mohan are joined by returning guest Paul Sztorc for a look at the past, present and future of Sidechains and the now-on-testnet Also sidechains supposedly don't need to be merge mined and can even be POS, meaning they can even be less centralized than bitcoin itself, which makes P. Todds whole argument moot. 2014-04-27T09:00:43Z Comment by Let's Talk Bitcoin! @steve-britt: You're welcome. 2014-04-27T04:56:06Z Comment by Let's Talk Bitcoin! Sidechains use the standard bitcoin “three-step” transaction to immobilise bitcoins whilst they’re “on” the sidechain . So, to repeat, we’ve used standard Bitcoin transaction functionality to move coins out of reach and we then prove to a second, unrelated chain, that we’ve done this. And when we’re done, whoever owns them on the sidechain can do the same thing and send them ...
Sidechains: Weaving a network of blockchains with Bitcoin by Adam Back of Blockstream
Join us to discuss Blockstream, Sidechains and Bitcoin 2.0. Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation ... Bitcoin Talk With Jason Les Of Riot Blockchain - Duration: 1:49:32. ... SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: Sidechains: Bringing New Elements to Bitcoin - Duration: 1:21:52. SF Bitcoin Developers 2,479 views ... Greg Maxwell explains new features enabled by Elements sidechains: Confidential Transactions, Issued Assets, Strong Federations and the two-way peg. (Recorded in 2015) In the talk, Blockstream's CTO Greg Maxwell discussed future cryptocurrency technology that is enabled by such sidechains—security, efficiency and additional features for Bitcoin. Category Education Over the last couple of years, blockchains have captured a significant mindshare of innovation in financial services, industrial Internet and digital commerce industries. The scope of applications ...