Quote from: rocks on November 08, 2014, 12:31:48 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 11:55:53 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 11:38:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 07, 2014, 11:29:16 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 07, 2014, 11:24:18 PM

So do I understand that you agree with me that a new risk is not introduced? There is always an inherent risk when trusting your Bitcoins to be somewhere else than on the blockchain.

Now to be completely fair, does Sidechain offer new schemes that could potentially abuse and profit from this risk? Probably. But from my point of view this is the nature of the beast : as the technology evolves so does the potential for more elaborate scams.

no i don't agree. i think NL's example is a good one showing increased risk.

ordinary ppl won't necessarily understand the bolded statement as you presume.

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

i need to understand better where you're coming from in terms of your blockchain views. is what you're saying today consistent with what you said here?:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9459338#msg9459338

These are separate threads. Huh

The thread above is regarding perceptions of fault by ordinary users and will Bitcoin beheld responsible for loses (which decreases trust) or will Sidechains be held responsible.

The link'ed thread was regarding the 21M cap protection and whether or not that concept is lost in SC. I've maintained the bitcoin blockmain will protect that.

this is not going well for resulting complexity in understanding. while I'm clear and understand your position and how side chains function

I'm just going to point out the hummer in this situation with a little metaphor:

"Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP." is the main thread, and the side thread 1.0 is a discussion on Side Chains, the respectful tone in which people are conversing after NL's intervention is known as side thread 2.0

we have bug that is a reconciliation disconnect between side thread 1.0 and side thread 2.0 that the contribution to side thread 1.0 was not supposed make you believe they were one and the same, but the side thread 2.0 contributing is supposed to be interpreted as the risk of a SC failure is mitigated because people will think of them as separate.

please dont take offense im just having fun

i respect your input thank you.

Quote from: rocks on November 06, 2014, 06:16:38 PM

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

Quote from: rocks on November 07, 2014, 11:38:50 PM

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.