From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B75C000B for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C9060675 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.216 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.117, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QG4-LQLjH1RS for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE2E60D88 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id t21so7325269qkg.6 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:content-language:to:cc :references:from:subject:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TCiS4lUmmzCpYmcdKh561hFATWZZ6TU7+uuSMLzHl7Y=; b=RRUKGPPtc2TlMb8RhJCCIiuo0VzexkQSz3emIoeMtSMIwXA3SQm5EF6TmOakqoQT6J txcBTiajsfaFZOFy0gi9xUSmKMOaD4CUkBCjxF15RZwusHXOLmyXBKNiF5Z2i63GhndD fSb0SSZPUHxXM934ZjOpnpdkfEiY1ZlbDNiUq1ZQNuke3yN5UxkFSEIr4giAoN7QPbkE 73xkUaKTWtm7870YjAmgiw8lbl+SeLnBJ+e8tqv0gQiDzB2XP1/XhwV/BIAABFQ9Nazg XnUcaxqXr/NlcFRXOsUjJuYBS3DT/8h4Wlx0x7LKRTggjx4Nm79IxqCrEbNNq+gGXsFJ JAAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:subject:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TCiS4lUmmzCpYmcdKh561hFATWZZ6TU7+uuSMLzHl7Y=; b=LYYyV+DAXQZLREgvTxXoWZoJNP2ciNHSzliR/4iOqEeBeY82hkkJY/KSjZKgFP2iYl Jex61ryp4lPQdrPh1Z7aJqYQ6lPOq5DXFUrVZqXR6gjymQ2SkxDGR1XGtfb9PFqdtAQe 1qLUZI0k4pWG5cvyFFSelUST2ti6/dCy4JapDQnCppnVSRvefDTCxICFDrc0ruiiq3bh YtJQBxLaGQdEETRKQ/x/x+NyNBFy8KGcArZAKonZkP5UsAFr1DBompmQwC4tGW3PH6DX s2cVosN4SGUwShrZqthff7Z10jL3zQBENNmR1zZ9X3XouK7t5VvL49qcbR9B3FeF3XIt 3NUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530X0p6YgfAvUBZnA0M8k7q6/4ifymZxk1Qm4wg6iJ/WYVq4Cjei HC9YmsxNsycutp+/pqj90RgWC+rElFw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTWAcVkCGMQa1rMpFy1rjo1DwonbHW5ds5MK1O1B3Gba8pRsP7uWPyQb4sxhTqPVXYK7pKWA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:889:b0:60a:50bf:1ed4 with SMTP id b9-20020a05620a088900b0060a50bf1ed4mr206005qka.55.1646424412735; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.165] (ool-45714b6d.dyn.optonline.net. [69.113.75.109]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v13-20020ac8578d000000b002de94b94741sm4145041qta.22.2022.03.04.12.06.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1b6c8b2b-63ff-8cd5-076f-6e15da678a36@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:06:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Billy Tetrud References: <0a6d4fea-2451-d4e7-8001-dd75a2e140ae@gmail.com> <0af7c513-3df8-dcc8-9a14-e7e909e7fdc6@gmail.com> <4e896010-ce85-5ee9-8f7d-1d29f2271621@gmail.com> From: Paul Sztorc In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recursive covenant opposition, or the absence thereof, was Re: TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and ANYPREVOUT X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 20:06:54 -0000 On 3/4/2022 7:35 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote: >> sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain ... > > A sidechain could stop supporting deposits from or withdrawals to > bitcoin and completely break any relationship with the main chain. > I agree this is not as sure of a thing as starting with an altcoin > (which of course never has that kind of relationship with bitcoin). > So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your scenario. > However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely > solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant). It is hard to see how this "sidechain cuts off the mainchain" scenario could plausibly be in enough people's interest: * Miners would lose the block subsidy (ie, the 6.25 BTC, or whatever of it that still remains), and txn fees from the mainchain and all other merged mined chains. * Developers would lose the ability to create a dissenting new piece of software (and would instead be forced into a permanent USSR-style "one party system" intellectual monoculture). * Users would lose --permanently-- the ability to take their coins to new blockchains, removing almost all of their leverage. Furthermore, because sidechains cannot exist without their parent (but not vice-versa), we can expect a large permanent interest in keeping mainchain node costs low. Aka: very small mainchain blocks forever. So, the shut-it-down mainchain-haters, would have to meet the question "why not just leave things the way they are?". And the cheaper the mainchain-nodes are, the harder that question is to answer. However, if a sidechain really were so overwhelmingly popular as to clear all of these hurdles, then I would first want to understand why it is so popular. Maybe it is a good thing and we should cheer it on. > Your anecdote about not running a full node is amusing, and I've often > found myself in that position. I certainly agree different people are > different and so different trade offs can be better for different > people. However, the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock > sidechain do better than both eg Visa and lightning? Yes, that's true. There are very many tradeoffs in general: 1. Onboarding 2. Route Capacity / Payment Limits 3. Failed Payments 4. Speed of Payment 5. Receive while offline / need for interaction/monitoring/watchtowers 6. Micropayments 7. Types of fees charged, and for what 8. Contribution to layer1 security budget 9. Auditability (re: large organizations) / general complexity LN is certainly better for 4 and 6. But everything else is probably up for grabs. And this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. I just made it up now. (And, if the layer2 is harmless, then its existence can be justified via one single net benefit, for some users, somewhere on the tradeoff-list.) Paul