public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:17:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150616181724.GA4055@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OJg2hC4Ab4Yxy3ekH4WXD9hqHore8+sbF9r1r2SwT_zg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1913 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:15:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate
> > everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything. Sidechains do
> > not offer you a useful compromise here, as well as adding huge delays and
> > conplexity.
> >
> 
> As noted to Adam last night - although I agree it adds complexity - side
> chains are one solution that will indeed help with scaling long term.
> Similar to the graph you see with git repos and merges, having aggregation
> chains that arbitrarily fork and then rejoin the main chain are both
> feasible and useful.
> 
> That code & future is a ways away from production, so doesn't help us
> here.  Still, let's not dismiss it as a solution either.

To be clear, it depends on what kind of sidechain.

My off-chain transaction notions are federated sidechains with an
economic incentive to not commit fraud using fidelity bonds; they were
definitely proposed as a scaling solution.

Merge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a
scaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for
miners.

Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the
tree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a
scaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid
design yet that's ready for production. (my treechains don't qualify for
transactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)

Keep in mind that other than preserving mining
decentralization/resisting censorship, we've known how to scale up
blockchains for ages w/ things like (U)TXO commitments and fraud proofs.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-16 18:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-20  2:55 [Bitcoin-development] Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains Andrew
2015-05-25 18:15 ` Mike Hearn
2015-05-28  2:16   ` Andrew
2015-05-28  2:34     ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-13 14:39 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-13 17:55   ` Andrew
2015-06-14  6:55   ` Martin Schwarz
2015-06-15 17:05     ` Andrew
2015-06-15 17:09       ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-15 17:15         ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-16 18:17           ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-06-16 18:43             ` Andrew
2015-06-16 19:04               ` Andrew
2015-06-15 17:18         ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 18:00           ` Andrew
2015-06-16 15:23             ` Andrew
2015-06-15 18:01           ` Jeff Garzik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150616181724.GA4055@muck \
    --to=pete@petertodd.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=jgarzik@bitpay.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox