Quote from: Odalv on October 28, 2014, 02:51:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 28, 2014, 02:06:39 AM

Quote from: Odalv on October 27, 2014, 11:33:55 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on October 27, 2014, 07:37:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 27, 2014, 07:31:43 PM

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhpcke

Quote

Atomic swaps allow transfer to happen without waiting on the peg... a result of this means that a single 2wp transfer can basically exit all the people at once.

It does effectively mean that a sidechain abandoned by miners may end up costing more in transaction fees to exit than you'd like. The situation is much brighter than being left with altcoins no one wants, and also ignores the possible (likely?) existance of altruistic miners that continue to mine along just because.

But if some implementation of SC (I do not think SC as idea) become scam or there is a bug then bitcoins may be lost.

So in your opinion, does this mean everyone can get their BTC back in the event of a SC failure with just a larger tx fee?

It is very complex to answer.

SideChain can be created in many ways (but obviously you do want to accept this fact)
SideChain(IDEA) is "concept?" what describes your Bitcoin transaction off the main chain (transaction are not recorded in bitcoin blockchain).
One example of sidechain is bitcoin-exchange (one of them is Bitstamp). Bitstamp exists, and Bitstamp creates off-chain bitcoin transaction.(buys/sells bitcoins)

In term of SideChain(IDEA) it is centralized and ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain. -> It exists now.
- you can lock your bitcoins in bitstamp controlled address and trade
- Bitstamp is only miner who creates blockchain (history of trades) . Bitstamp mine transactions -> (who sold/bought, add-to-order-book, market-buy/sell, ... and so on) and Bitstamp publish orderbook.
- and only Bitstamp can unlock your bitcoin (bitstampBTC)

Bitstamp is two-way-peg SC with 1:1 exchange rate and ONE ENTITY controlled sidechain

==
Blockstream paper describes how to create different SideChain
- one of them is Federated peg (M of N entities controlled sidechain) -> it can be created without changes to bitcoin protocol now.
- I think, it is better than centralized one

==
and finally few variants how to create decentralized (not supported by bitcoin now)

==
this decentralized SC can be even combined with (M of N SC's) or (Single Entity SC) in case there is not enough mining power

=> The questions is IF/HOW add decentralized SC's.

1) bold above - I'd argue that OT is better for this than SC without the added risk of losing all the coins in the SC.

A Side Chain implies a chain (as in a blockchain - that is mined and runs alongside the bitcoin blockchain)

2) this is how innovation needs to happen, its ethical wrong for a for profit company to make prototypical changes for profit.

3) why change the Protocol, we have all this decentralized innovation in the pipe with no change to Bitcoin needed.

The conclusion Im left with is, SideChanes will all become ScameCoins, at best they will inflate the utility of a fixed supply of Bitcoin, at worst they will corrupt Bitcoin by disenfranchising miners, i.e. the value of Bitcoin will be in the SC, and as reward halving shrinks, the fees will be going to the SC miners, Bitcoin may become the merged Mined SideChain - the glue that keeps it all together something you have to mine to keep the integrity of the SC alive. And the magic formula that made Bitcoin is eroded.

The SC concept allows for inflation in that the peg, as it can be adjusted by a predetermined formula, what is missing form an economic perspective is a negative pegging where the owners of the SC have to add more Bitcoin to keep it going.

The answer to you decentralised SC is merged mining, and that is only achieved by incentivising miners with fees, the net result is monetary inflation backed by the Blockchain. There are other solutions like Spin-offs that have no inflationary effect, I still dont see the need to enable SC MM at all.