From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8695C001A; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D0583E60; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:58:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27WzfpUffRCj; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:58:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FFFE83E5E; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id m3so11229465eda.10; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:58:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KiNtiXWbyJ3B61WsQykOEIxGr82aCC6ckr+/P4s+qss=; b=UlGjCsekHKLx+mPfASUhMPldqWfzsvZUoMeFBUcrWMZQOFpDYZjTpSuasbHCpoF8am I3BbQ5TGoETsJZBQPXI9kTAejVU9THPiJtzWqJoEs0vOpCPCthJ2gAozK/NiLqiRnvST ahP/r++KcKGWcH/tZsHXmXj4WOoPE9S/gv/JkyCQVgDoJ3HF/gKh7IgholyTIXBqstlM aHDjQ0I9YUJpo2kzH9bt5yXTwmDIUZcwzRCR47I/FjQ5nTCjUdGOhfUbWRgf8O35mVAr Cp2HTO0AARZjoLM/SBz6unaYCFeyhLFmymPRTXNXLb2f6qrYKRdVO3L6y8ABc0BiELkz nNdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KiNtiXWbyJ3B61WsQykOEIxGr82aCC6ckr+/P4s+qss=; b=Mz2Is81ht71AB9Q8wvi9OtPnyQbPRZV+7vGskNIcq/3UyeRZI+tNQstuEgHMfkRiRx Cbe6KmqudpAAXbIl97QLf208Nx3ou3W2OrpoCQ8BYNn6wgs9dEdjavst05iHCvcydtrT GfinhBPMr/LZJCHk3ux9TQrItH62arPNfLkAtOXqSOiJNgoUotMD2ovrPdY7wm0sXMin Ju+5ynGOrvdi+LpMJvlC1I35YbNn8UsePqq0Rzg1d6Cxl4ruVy6DLu1RwFlThU1bUlWg pnTYGQXCV0nd4U9ICpsVPMCu6bzSYg7wYCn+aAoFOxIWcY5T0NSHutsJCgiAnFH9MoFW PZfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531oHrw3kuWKaz7is/HA3gFjkgI5yBdNQKrJeo1+dAlggteq1Z71 W0C2KXG5NyJTKUe2b+x2EKx3UthOcqL3pijr18GFwoWi X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyw6TJGtnOXPorBp7ntF4z424GnXUWsdlZ92Wg30sWEelIpTdORadkTeIMCcuaq/RDDyDibENy/fXfqiNOAHMo= X-Received: by 2002:a50:fb91:0:b0:408:5100:b4a7 with SMTP id e17-20020a50fb91000000b004085100b4a7mr11514383edq.311.1645887504122; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:58:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:58:12 -0600 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000006071905d8ed0ca0" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 15:35:23 +0000 Cc: "lightning-dev\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Comparison Of LN and Drivechain Security In The Presence Of 51% Attackers 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: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:58:27 -0000 --00000000000006071905d8ed0ca0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living Math is brutal On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Good morning Paul, > > > > I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivechain. > But I can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each other. > > > > So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer all of these > questions, then you basically understand Drivechain: > > > > 0. We could change DC to make miner-theft impossible, by making it a > layer1 consensus rule that miners never steal. Why is this cure worse than > the disease? > > Now miners are forced to look at all sideblocks, not optionally do so if > it is profitable for them. > > > 1. If 100% hashrate wanted to steal coins from a DC sidechain *as > quickly as possible*, how long would this take (in blocks)? > > 13,150 (I think this is how you changed it after feedback from this list, > I think I remember it was ~3000 before or thereabouts.) > > > 2. Per sidechain per year (ie, per 52560 blocks), how many DC > withdrawals can take place (maximum)? How many can be attempted? > > (Ie, how does the 'train track metaphor' work, from ~1h5m in the > "Overview and Misconceptions" video)? > > I hate watching videos, I can read faster than anyone can talk (except > maybe Laolu, he speaks faster than I can process, never mind read). > > ~4 times (assuming 52560 block per year, which may vary due to new miners, > hashrate drops, etc) > > > 3. Only two types of people should ever be using the DC withdrawal > system at all. > > 3a. Which two? > > a. Miners destroying the sidechain because the sidechain is no longer > viable. > b. Aggregators of sidechain-to-minechain transfers and large whales. > > > 3b. How is everyone else, expected to move their coins from chain to > chain? > > Cross-system atomic swaps. > (I use "System" here since the same mechanism works for Lightning > channels, and channels are not blockchains.) > > > 3c. (Obviously, this improves UX.) But why does it also improve > security? > > Drivechain-based pegged transfers are aggregates of many smaller transfers > and thus every transfer out from the sidechain contributes its "fee" to the > security of the peg. > > > -- > > 4. What do the parameters b and m stand for (in the DC security model)? > > m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad > if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue > living, 1 = do not care, > 1 people want to actively kill the sidechain. > > b is how much profit a mainchain miner expects from supporting a sidechain > (do not remember the unit though). > Something like u = a + b where a is the mainchain, b is the sidechain, u > is the total profit. > Or fees? Something like that. > > > 5. How can m possibly be above 1? Give an example of a > sidechain-attribute which may cause this situation to arise. > > The sidechain is a total scam. > A bug may be found in the sidechain that completely negates any security > it might have, thus removing any desire to protect the sidechain and > potentially make users want to destroy it completely rather than let it > continue. > People end up hating sidechains completely. > > > 6. For which range of m, is DC designed to deter sc-theft? > > m <= 1 > > > 7. If DC could be changed to magically deter theft across all ranges of > m, why would that be bad for sidechain users in general? > > Because the sidechain would already be part of mainchain consensus. > > > -- > > 8. If imminent victims of a DC-based theft, used a mainchain UASF to > prohibit the future theft-withdrawal, then how would this affect non-DC > users? > > If the non-DC users do not care, then they are unaffected. > If the non-DC users want to actively kill the sidechain, they will > counterattack with an opposite UASF and we have a chainsplit and sadness > and mutual destruction and death and a new subreddit. > > > 9. In what ways might the BTC network one day become uncompetitive? And > how is this different from caring about a sidechain's m and b? > > If it does not enable scaling technology fast enough to actually be able > to enable hyperbitcoinization. > > Sidechains are not a scaling solution, so caring about m and b is > different because your focus is not on scaling. > > > -- > > 10. If DC were successful, Altcoin-investors would be harmed. Two > Maximalist-groups would also be slightly harmed -- who are these? > > Dunno! > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000006071905d8ed0ca0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0m is how much = people want to kill a sidechain, 0 =3D everybody would be sad if it died an= d would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living

Math is brutal

=
On Sat, Fe= b 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:

Good morning Paul,


> I don't think I can stop people from being ignorant about Drivecha= in. But I can at least allow the Drivechain-knowledgable to identify each o= ther.
>
> So here below, I present a little "quiz". If you can answer = all of these questions, then you basically understand Drivechain:
>
> 0. We could change DC to make miner-theft impossible, by making it a l= ayer1 consensus rule that miners never steal. Why is this cure worse than t= he disease?

Now miners are forced to look at all sideblocks, not optionally do so if it= is profitable for them.

> 1. If 100% hashrate wanted to steal coins from a DC sidechain *as quic= kly as possible*, how long would this take (in blocks)?

13,150 (I think this is how you changed it after feedback from this list, I= think I remember it was ~3000 before or thereabouts.)

> 2. Per sidechain per year (ie, per 52560 blocks), how many DC withdraw= als can take place (maximum)? How many can be attempted?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (Ie, how does the 'train track metaphor' w= ork, from ~1h5m in the "Overview and Misconceptions" video)?

I hate watching videos, I can read faster than anyone can talk (except mayb= e Laolu, he speaks faster than I can process, never mind read).

~4 times (assuming 52560 block per year, which may vary due to new miners, = hashrate drops, etc)

> 3. Only two types of people should ever be using the DC withdrawal sys= tem at all.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A03a. Which two?

a.=C2=A0 Miners destroying the sidechain because the sidechain is no longer= viable.
b.=C2=A0 Aggregators of sidechain-to-minechain transfers and large whales.<= br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A03b. How is everyone else, expected to move their coins fro= m chain to chain?

Cross-system atomic swaps.
(I use "System" here since the same mechanism works for Lightning= channels, and channels are not blockchains.)

>=C2=A0 =C2=A03c. (Obviously, this improves UX.) But why does it also im= prove security?

Drivechain-based pegged transfers are aggregates of many smaller transfers = and thus every transfer out from the sidechain contributes its "fee&qu= ot; to the security of the peg.

> --
> 4. What do the parameters b and m stand for (in the DC security model)= ?

m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 =3D everybody would be sad= if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue livin= g, 1 =3D do not care, > 1 people want to actively kill the sidechain.
b is how much profit a mainchain miner expects from supporting a sidechain = (do not remember the unit though).
Something like u =3D a + b where a is the mainchain, b is the sidechain, u = is the total profit.
Or fees?=C2=A0 Something like that.

> 5. How can m possibly be above 1? Give an example of a sidechain-attri= bute which may cause this situation to arise.

The sidechain is a total scam.
A bug may be found in the sidechain that completely negates any security it= might have, thus removing any desire to protect the sidechain and potentia= lly make users want to destroy it completely rather than let it continue. People end up hating sidechains completely.

> 6. For which range of m, is DC designed to deter sc-theft?

m <=3D 1

> 7. If DC could be changed to magically deter theft across all ranges o= f m, why would that be bad for sidechain users in general?

Because the sidechain would already be part of mainchain consensus.

> --
> 8. If imminent victims of a DC-based theft, used a mainchain UASF to p= rohibit the future theft-withdrawal, then how would this affect non-DC user= s?

If the non-DC users do not care, then they are unaffected.
If the non-DC users want to actively kill the sidechain, they will countera= ttack with an opposite UASF and we have a chainsplit and sadness and mutual= destruction and death and a new subreddit.

> 9. In what ways might the BTC network one day become uncompetitive? An= d how is this different from caring about a sidechain's m and b?

If it does not enable scaling technology fast enough to actually be able to= enable hyperbitcoinization.

Sidechains are not a scaling solution, so caring about m and b is different= because your focus is not on scaling.

> --
> 10. If DC were successful, Altcoin-investors would be harmed. Two Maxi= malist-groups would also be slightly harmed -- who are these?

Dunno!


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000006071905d8ed0ca0--