From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9258CACA for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:22:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com (mail-pf0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B9914E for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q85so2139176pfq.1 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=0vxWLdGEYfjXWvQU0FXL9EXWnnKuPsbVkCJZZkzkLiY=; b=k3syhdeXaP3tctZOvzrZFcB5/G/2Fx83/CRe3bD/j5RIuIpKxbKuWcpL/T8t6HCW/K ZlYl4aCE0HTfLY4vNcNCkJACljZeqXwGcDuBY7q1WDjk1YLbHjAyiR5/ZhoMWADPZwIk KzaJMSiJ6Os6/UJxsW117i/NYgKA3bmeG7iBuqqgFz2Qw0xnQcj0YuZY2nUfkpcroWHu LDwCsyfRGNuHGnH8bhrC6B1KR2V7Ksl26Uy8NHkLiIKjFR2ZdEbj+tnYY7L4GpblTVtR DWrJucbr18npW34yurKqQ4UgDzxuFn2t63HpoRFqvIKwbDU/PM7ewxQIQVKMxpMSc4re 3dig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=0vxWLdGEYfjXWvQU0FXL9EXWnnKuPsbVkCJZZkzkLiY=; b=HO0H/VzJkNtRWXV/srXJ++GJs7fnS0Yeb1xwErsTYMK0sAQmWOcM1xQHThMBadqH7i vSUx/eiCUSqJ5I+sv0VNjLT90w3Qj0EfpSoXQzJYi5DdSQ66VXMGTLQziExqvuDk78UE qiqq3LL+oW3he4ZD4wQ6FDmNwfaj6WuqGzphCH0zcMKObQA4VEJAbH/oZB/jx0ERxQMY Hjo4KcDQGs9AztnzfyaX6HoiuENWl82KfuEest5RV8+1mcpOny+IQCqpA/9X6AWNiUtx CEn8grK7EHrc5DkgGKvmUw5TkqUhZCMT9K7fmpoN8abrWlsPtdmIcWEnHGaf8dkLTVen W1ZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111WtScuIabifTzFIQG24alDjZfmh4+LSeGAa5fra2Dgl7LBe3k5 +YkFn6sxcMl6bNovLTg= X-Received: by 10.99.55.10 with SMTP id e10mr448902pga.176.1499808139938; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-50-188-181-7.hsd1.or.comcast.net. [50.188.181.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w20sm415187pgc.34.2017.07.11.14.22.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> From: CryptAxe Message-ID: <78ce5fe7-f1bb-81c6-585c-c882d2d9b199@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:16:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861" Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:29:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:22:21 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they opt-in to another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not have to adopt any of the changes made to a sidechain such as larger blocks for example. On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > Concept ACK. > > If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we > scale > > > I strongly disagree with that statement. > > Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a > scalability improvement, but merely enabling users to opt-in for > another security model. > > While obviously any future with wider adoption will need different > technologies that have different trade-offs, and anyone is free to > choose their security model, I don't think this particular one is > interesting. In terms of validation cost to auditors, it is as bad as > just a capacity increase on chain, while simultaneously adding the > extra risk of miners being able to vote to steal your money. > > Cheers, > > -- > Pieter > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they opt-in to another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not have to adopt any of the changes made to a sidechain such as larger blocks for example.


On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Concept ACK.

If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scale

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a scalability improvement, but merely enabling users to opt-in for another security model.

While obviously any future with wider adoption will need different technologies that have different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose their security model, I don't think this particular one is interesting. In terms of validation cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity increase on chain, while simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners being able to vote to steal your money.

Cheers,

--
Pieter



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861--