4 ms·

Can anyone give the gist of how the bitcoin blockchain knows/cares that the sidechain is not using them any more, and how it knows who to transfer them to?

by habitue 12y ago

gendal 12y ago
The actor wanting to reanimate the coins on the Bitcoin network provides a proof to the Bitcoin network that 1) the coins on the sidechain have been moved to a particular address that puts them out of reach, 2) that this transaction has been buried by sufficient blocks so that it's unlikely to be reversed, 3) that it was this actor that did it. This is why the sidechains paper suggests a one-off change to Bitcoin might be needed: there's no out-of-the-box Bitcoin feature to validate this proof. The authors propose an interim measure where n-of-m "functionaries" are trusted to validate the proof.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kolinko 12y ago
With a small change to bitcoin protocol it should be possible in some cases. But right now the only viable option is to use M of N oracles: https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html Basically, you choose a panel of up to 15 independent entities to verify that the funds were locked indeed. The panel can be modified by a majority of votes if some of the entities prove to be unreliable - kind of like the Supreme Court works. This obviously introduces a new vulnerability to the system, but is the best solution available right now.
- musername 12y ago
  well, if a vulnerabillity like this is the best it can do, I guess I will not switch to the best alternative to fiat, not anytime soon. /s To be clear, IMHO it is a mitigation or heuristic, not a solution at all. Disclaimer: slightly disgruntled and provokative because I don't really understand the technicalities and a lot of hype makes it even more unbelievable.
  - adrianmacneil 12y ago
    Note that this is only a compatibility measure (the equivalent of an IPv6 tunnel to move traffic between networks). The longer term solution is to add a new opcode to bitcoin, which would natively support moving bitcoin between sidechains.

Can anyone give the gist of how the bitcoin blockchain knows/cares that the sidechain is not using them any more, and how it knows who to transfer them to?

by habitue 12y ago

Can anyone give the gist of how the bitcoin blockchain knows/cares that the sidechain is not using them any more, and how it knows who to transfer them to?

gendal 12y ago

The actor wanting to reanimate the coins on the Bitcoin network provides a proof to the Bitcoin network that 1) the coins on the sidechain have been moved to a particular address that puts them out of reach, 2) that this transaction has been buried by sufficient blocks so that it's unlikely to be reversed, 3) that it was this actor that did it. This is why the sidechains paper suggests a one-off change to Bitcoin might be needed: there's no out-of-the-box Bitcoin feature to validate this proof. The authors propose an interim measure where n-of-m "functionaries" are trusted to validate the proof.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kolinko 12y ago

With a small change to bitcoin protocol it should be possible in some cases. But right now the only viable option is to use M of N oracles: https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2014/06/bit-thereum.html Basically, you choose a panel of up to 15 independent entities to verify that the funds were locked indeed. The panel can be modified by a majority of votes if some of the entities prove to be unreliable - kind of like the Supreme Court works. This obviously introduces a new vulnerability to the system, but is the best solution available right now.

musername 12y ago
well, if a vulnerabillity like this is the best it can do, I guess I will not switch to the best alternative to fiat, not anytime soon. /s To be clear, IMHO it is a mitigation or heuristic, not a solution at all. Disclaimer: slightly disgruntled and provokative because I don't really understand the technicalities and a lot of hype makes it even more unbelievable.
- adrianmacneil 12y ago
  Note that this is only a compatibility measure (the equivalent of an IPv6 tunnel to move traffic between networks). The longer term solution is to add a new opcode to bitcoin, which would natively support moving bitcoin between sidechains.