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 CC938BAC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:01:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B23717C for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z78so1699740lff.0 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3Teb0Knb9ch8/3vKzJzb9U5CBcjlApAAS/cqdCwT8Qc=; b=h6Amz6arLY3SI0AfAozFOgnEU69lsv6JnUhd89VS3CFga3+0iwOMCuZCRUgZpTKDsc lsoiQBsl+vJA9Vfnn5VV/AURbcUtwZwSRrCNjCusGEWORmo9RRIYv9FIC7tZhViH4wB5 GKosRUk9ykITScXCUr16tWoDhNU/xtNnE474n3jmQx9bMAuXlsT2VexJmgMlAEHYTiSi 9z2OdsjWHnTPyAf6hYYIqumoPRnCD9HEtBE8QaXBwbzXQqfjChVAEYbWpJT6cWAUZLE/ N/baoUSJjhvbjBFozXtPIy/VwNak/jQHdpJ11iEIq8mw0U4c1SiKiEYQzsgflau56Sa+ GhqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3Teb0Knb9ch8/3vKzJzb9U5CBcjlApAAS/cqdCwT8Qc=; b=Zpf04BuCgyyf9tTsN2pSbbOlb4kXWs31UppUj0d/yVFIezfiBu5u7zhOpdoBEfg5yR i0w/ozVzu2PYargF6s9i2AI0T1Q0OWdqQCSGFRqy9Gn0IDXgKNPtwiyIN22VL2WeelUX g/fc/hiSg++sZAzK7VRWPYP0BizbMOf0dgvIcw60dzJWdX28+c1cvKUVAtz9s28p/Pk7 XHmQhKHTlq2tZ+LzUGU2/l10VXk0liRHCvMTjwdReNb8hNv1J05y3EfyWp7oiLPoPtAE vI0RdKQPl7Mxnr7bQTUi6xTLXYbKIiKq58uSMO9UTZUJE6aVlECOas5gFAxyj6c0tOYU yHFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110veqdrJz5gqRXbS4E0JLzjusSfapOEKMaifrIvfkJtY5DAwPke MvBwhiwSdGylaImhD1bdtriPyzP72Q== X-Received: by 10.80.181.80 with SMTP id z16mr3700336edd.6.1499803271632; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.222.141 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:10 -0700 Message-ID: To: Chris Stewart , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2" 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 21:09:17 +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 20:01:14 -0000 --94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 --94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=
On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via b= itcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
Concept ACK.

<= /div>If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scal= e

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 obviou= sly any future with wider adoption will need different technologies that ha= ve different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose their security model,= I don't think this particular one is interesting. In terms of validati= on cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity increase on chain, whi= le simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners being able to vote to ste= al your money.

Cheers,

--
Pieter

--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2--