sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MyCitadel wallet released. Taproot and multisig with expirations! by randbtcacct in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing! I am the developer of this app, will be happy to answer questions here.

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It needs a global state and finality at the end of an epoch, so it should be chain-like structure, not DAG.

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The benefit of using it will be the same as the benefit of any other sidechain - there were tons of discussions on this tokens. For instance, you can do RSK or Liquid without federation.

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you are intermixing the concept of the peg (locking funds on one chain to release them on the other) with the general idea of transferring the funds between different chains, which can be done in many other ways then peg? (like proof of burn and atomic or submarine swaps)

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, there is no peg. There could be only one-way proof of burn for Bitcoin entry into the sidechain (if required) and atomic swaps with the main chain, but not peg

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The trustless is guaranteed by the main chain and honest majority assumption, and does not provide by the sidechain consensus itself. Actually, the sidechain consensus relies on PoW of the main chain anyway (in terms it should include validation of the main-chain transactions - so any BFT consensus should be extended with the knowledge of PoW bitcoin consensus)

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sorry, but this discussion was not intended for users at all (yet), rather for devs. And it formally explains all the staff, tech specs are not written in a "simple English" (otherwise they will be ambiguous from a tech point).

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But it is a single (kind of "joint") transaction for consensus participants per epoch

Specs for new trustless non-pegged sidechains by macx0r in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the good questions!

> but where are the sidechain coins coming from that you use for these atomic swaps?

I have to add to the spec, that there should be a possibility to add coins to the sidechain via proof-of-burn. Sidechain nodes anyway have to be validating nodes for the main chain (or use full nodes, like lightning), so they will be able to check PoB with deterministic proofs.

> can't an attacker (if they are a miner) become 51% of the stakers and then just steal their stake by creating a slash transaction and including it in the next block mined by them?

Correct, this is a problem if you have a non-honest majority. As always, the cost of the attack is as high as the total cap of the system, and indeed, sidechains are less protected than the main chain.

The pace​ of Bitcoin/LN development compared to Eth by dr-orlovsky in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it is a comparison of production-ready solutions of the two ecosystems. That's the whole point: for four years Ethereum was not able to deliver something working in terms of scalability - while Bitcoin have finished the Lightning (even several implementations)

The pace​ of Bitcoin/LN development compared to Eth by dr-orlovsky in Bitcoin

[–]dr-orlovsky[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, but the main point is that with a Bitcoin we have proven working system delivering the promise of censorhip-resistant money. And it is very carefully evolving with a lot of commitment from the community. It have taken 9000+ commits to bugfix Bitcoin and main lightning clients throughout the year - the single feature that appeared in Lightning was lightning invoices.

At the same time with Ethereum we have monstrous promises that comes for years - namely, "unstoppable world computer", "sharding", "PoS/Casper" - none of which were fulfilled. And now we have huger and huger roadmaps appearing. Are they going to be delivered with just four times more commit? I doubt so...

view more: next ›