Side chain question for Sunny King

sabreiib 2014-10-14 01:01:23 UTC #1

Hi Sunny, ;D I wonder whether side chain can be used as a bitmessage type application. When you send some PPCs to someone, you can write down words for him/her and send message with PPCs.The text information is stored in a side chain while PPC transfer information in main chain.
Is this feasible? If so, I think sidechained cryptos will beat bitmessage badly because the transaction fee prevents those spams attacks.

And nubits will get revenue in this way, when people use nu as an encrypt email system, the destroyed NBT(transaction fee) is indeed our profit because we needn't prepare corresponding buying wall.

Sunny_King 2014-10-17 21:58:49 UTC #2

Yes, but it's probably not directly competing with bitmessage, as I understand, in blockchain based solutions, messages are stored in blockchain/sidechain, so there is different limits on scalability.

Also, for sidechain application it probably wouldn't involve a PPC transaction. The message is contained inside a sidechain transaction only.

sabreiib 2014-10-18 03:24:33 UTC #3

Isn't bitmessage a solution based on blockchain technology?
So bitmessage is same as my proposal message service on nubits net.

So sidechain and blockchain can not share transactions, what about a smart contract?

Assume that Nu has a sidechain which is dedicated to message service. When I send message in this side chain, I have to spend 0.01nbt on blockchain. Is it feasible?

Another solution is we store message information on Nu blockchain but in different files, and users have the option to download extra message information, if they choose not, they can just syn Nu transaction record and discard message part.

pillow 2014-10-18 07:15:18 UTC #4

I believe its possible to create a peercoin message sidechain that will have an incentive to be backed by the Peercoin network. It's not related to NuBits though.

I thought about this for 10 minutes. So yea... I reeeally thought it through?

Anyway, I'm not sure if it smart to discuss these things in a public sub-forum? Are there another type of communication channel that we can use?

EDIT: My solution is not necessarily dependent on Peercoin. It would work on any other Proof-of-Stake implementation (not as likely to work with Proof-of-Work though). Also this line of thinking offers the potential of solving other sidechain related stuff, so yea, I think it's worth keeping a paranoid attitude towards discussing these things in public.

sabreiib 2014-10-18 09:51:06 UTC #5

pillow, you may PM me even SK.

Nubits really need a service that can destroy NBT, this is about profit model.

D_Winters 2014-10-18 14:23:24 UTC #6

i don,t think sunny will Complicit with nubits team

pillow 2014-10-18 21:00:08 UTC #7

I don't own any NuShares or NuBits, so I'm mainly focusing on the Peercoin side of things. I've not had time to thinka about how to do anything with NuBits yet.

I'm of course not sure how to do it with Peercoin either. I have a what I believe to be over-complicated way of doing it which I don't think it beautiful enough, so I'm thinking of another way of doing it, but I still have some thinking to do before I'm ready to talk about it. I need to reduce the risk of sounding like a total imbasilica.

caribou 2014-10-25 15:17:35 UTC #8

I think Peershares (i.e. its applications) should be integrated with Peercoin Network by sidechains in the future.

caribou 2014-10-25 16:07:18 UTC #9

According to Bitcoin sidechains whitepaper, both parent chian and sidechains add a transaction for each transfer. This willn't solve the issue of Bitcoin blockchain bloat.

pillow 2014-10-25 17:45:16 UTC #10

I've not read the whitepaper, but my guess would be that they are referring to the transaction where the coin is "moved" from the main chain to the side chain. Then on the side-chain all kinds of total craziness can happen, like a 10 seconds confirmation side chain, zero-proof stuff (which also have bigger messages) and all that kind of stuff. This would happen on the side chain and not be bloating the main chain. Then there would be this transaction where the coin is moved back from the side to the main chain and when its crossing back, the coin would leave all that bloating history behind so to speak.

Disclaimer: I'm totally just making this up, I've not read the whitepaper and this is all just pure guess work, based on me thinking how it kind of "have to work" and not how it actually works.

caribou 2014-10-25 18:26:18 UTC #11

pillow:

caribou:

Sunny King:

Yes, but it's probably not directly competing with bitmessage, as I understand, in blockchain based solutions, messages are stored in blockchain/sidechain, so there is different limits on scalability.

Also, for sidechain application it probably wouldn't involve a PPC transaction. The message is contained inside a sidechain transaction only.

According to Bitcoin sidechains whitepaper, both parent chian and sidechains add a transaction for each transfer. This willn't solve the issue of Bitcoin blockchain bloat.

I've not read the whitepaper, but my guess would be that they are referring to the transaction where the coin is "moved" from the main chain to the side chain. Then on the side-chain all kinds of total craziness can happen, like a 10 seconds confirmation side chain, zero-proof stuff (which also have bigger messages) and all that kind of stuff. This would happen on the side chain and not be bloating the main chain. Then there would be this transaction where the coin is moved back from the side to the main chain and when its crossing back, the coin would leave all that bloating history behind so to speak.

Disclaimer: I'm totally just making this up, I've not read the whitepaper and this is all just pure guess work, based on me thinking how it kind of "have to work" and not how it actually works.

In P6 of Bitcoin sidechain whitepaper:
"Our proposed solution is to transfer assets by providing proofs of possession in the transferring transactions themselves, avoiding the need for nodes to track the sending chain. On a high level,
when moving assets from one blockchain to another, we create a transaction on the first blockchain locking the assets, then create a transaction on the second blockchain whose inputs contain a
cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly. These inputs are tagged with an asset type, e.g. the genesis hash of its originating blockchain.

We refer to the first blockchain as the parent chain, and the second simply as the sidechain."

pillow 2014-10-27 03:37:02 UTC #12

The Ciyam AT link could be worth mentioning here (dont know much about it though):https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822100.0 its atomic cross blockchain transaction turing complete. Issues about exchange ratio still stands but these kind off stuff is crazy amazing if it works.