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 B5F7E256 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:23:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from DUB004-OMC4S4.hotmail.com (dub004-omc4s4.hotmail.com [157.55.2.79]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50DAF79 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:23:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DUB118-W40 ([157.55.2.71]) by DUB004-OMC4S4.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:23:44 -0700 X-TMN: [ppG/TWH8yrsp85ZXgVf7m8k6ncK59WHR] X-Originating-Email: [johndhuk@live.co.uk] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d2d1fb10-3faa-4fa4-9dbb-e645565bc877_" From: John Hardy Sender: To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:23:44 +0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2016 21:23:44.0581 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF0B9750:01D22405] X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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 Oct 2016 23:33:46 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Could a sidechain protocol create an addressable "Internet of Blockchains" and facilitate scaling? 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 Oct 2016 21:23:48 -0000 --_d2d1fb10-3faa-4fa4-9dbb-e645565bc877_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sidechains seem an inevitable tool for scaling. They allow Bitcoins to be t= ransferred from the main blockchain into external blockchains=2C of which t= here can be any number with radically different approaches. In current thinking I have encountered=2C sidechains are isolated from each= other. To move Bitcoin between them would involve a slow transfer back to = the mainchain=2C and then out again to a different sidechain. Could we instead create a protocol for addressable blockchains=2C all using= a shared proof of work=2C which effectively acts as an Internet of Blockch= ains? Instead of transferring Bitcoin into individual sidechains=2C you move them= into the master sidechain=2C which I'll call Angel. The Angel blockchain s= its at the top of of a tree of blockchains=2C each of which can have radica= lly different properties=2C but are all able to transfer Bitcoin and data b= etween each other using a standardised protocol. Each blockchain has its own address=2C much like an IP address. The Angel b= lockchain acts as a registrar=2C a public record of every blockchain and it= s properties. Creating a blockchain is as simple as getting a createBlockch= ain transaction included in an Angel block=2C with details of parameters su= ch as block creation time=2C block size limit=2C etc. A decentralised DNS o= f sorts. Mining in Angel uses a standardised format=2C creating hashes which allow a= ll different blockchains to contribute to the same Angel proof of work. Min= ers must hash the address of the blockchain they are mining=2C and if they = mine a hash of sufficient difficulty for that blockchain they are able to c= reate a block. Blockchains can have child blockchains=2C so a child of Angel might have th= e address aa9=2C and a child of aa9 might have the address aa9:e4d. The low= er down the tree you go=2C the lower the security=2C but the lower the tran= saction fees. If a miner on a lower level produces a hash of sufficient dif= ficulty=2C they can use it on any parents=2C up to and including the Angel = blockchain=2C and claim fees on each. Children always synchronise and follow all parents (and their reorganisatio= ns)=2C and parents are aware of their children. This allows you to do some = pretty cool things with security. If a child tries to withdraw to a parent = after spending on the child (a double spend attempt) this will be visible i= nstantly=2C and all child nodes will immediately be able to broadcast proof= of the double spend to parent chain nodes so they do not mine on those blo= cks. This effectively means children can inherit a level of security from t= heir parents without the same PoW difficulty. There are so many conflicting visions for how to scale Bitcoin. Angel allow= s the free market to decide which approaches are successful=2C and for comp= lementary blockchains with different use cases=2C such as privacy=2C high t= ransaction volume=2C and Turing completeness to more seamlessly exist along= side each other=2C using Bitcoin as the standard medium of exchange. I wrote this as a TLDR summary for a (still evolving) idea I had on the bes= t approach to scale Bitcoin infinitely. I've written more of my thoughts on= the idea at https://seebitcoin.com/2016/09/introducing-buzz-a-turing-compl= ete-concept-for-scaling-bitcoin-to-infinity-and-beyond/ Does anybody think this would be a better=2C more efficient way of implemen= ting sidechains? It allows infinite scaling=2C and standardisation allows b= etter pooling of resources. Thanks=2C John Hardyjohn@seebitcoin.com = --_d2d1fb10-3faa-4fa4-9dbb-e645565bc877_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Sidechains seem an inevitable to= ol for scaling. They allow Bitcoins to be transferred from the main blockch= ain into external blockchains=2C of which there can be any number with radi= cally different approaches.

In current thinking I have encountered=2C sidechains are isolate= d from each other. To move Bitcoin between them would involve a slow transf= er back to the mainchain=2C and then out again to a different sidechain.

Could we instead c= reate a protocol for addressable blockchains=2C all using a shared proof of= work=2C which effectively acts as an Internet of Blockchains?

Instead of transferring Bitcoi= n into individual sidechains=2C you move them into the master sidechain=2C = which I'll call Angel. The Angel blockchain sits at the top of of a tree of= blockchains=2C each of which can have radically different properties=2C bu= t are all able to transfer Bitcoin and data between each other using a stan= dardised protocol.

Each blockchain has its own address=2C much like an IP address. The Angel = blockchain acts as a registrar=2C a public record of every blockchain and i= ts properties. Creating a blockchain is as simple as getting a createBlockc= hain transaction included in an Angel block=2C with details of parameters s= uch as block creation time=2C block size limit=2C etc. A decentralised DNS = of sorts.

Minin= g in Angel uses a standardised format=2C creating hashes which allow all di= fferent blockchains to contribute to the same Angel proof of work. Miners m= ust hash the address of the blockchain they are mining=2C and if they mine = a hash of sufficient difficulty for that blockchain they are able to create= a block.

Block= chains can have child blockchains=2C so a child of Angel might have the add= ress aa9=2C and a child of aa9 might have the address aa9:e4d. The lower do= wn the tree you go=2C the lower the security=2C but the lower the transacti= on fees. If a miner on a lower level produces a hash of sufficient difficul= ty=2C they can use it on any parents=2C up to and including the Angel block= chain=2C and claim fees on each.

Children always synchronise and follow all parents (and thei= r reorganisations)=2C and parents are aware of their children. This allows = you to do some pretty cool things with security. If a child tries to withdr= aw to a parent after spending on the child (a double spend attempt) this wi= ll be visible instantly=2C and all child nodes will immediately be able to = broadcast proof of the double spend to parent chain nodes so they do not mi= ne on those blocks. This effectively means children can inherit a level of = security from their parents without the same PoW difficulty.

There are so many conflicting vi= sions for how to scale Bitcoin. Angel allows the free market to decide whic= h approaches are successful=2C and for complementary blockchains with diffe= rent use cases=2C such as privacy=2C high transaction volume=2C and Turing = completeness to more seamlessly exist alongside each other=2C using Bitcoin= as the standard medium of exchange.

<= div style=3D"color:rgb(34=2C 34=2C 34)=3Bfont-family:arial=2C sans-serif=3B= font-size:small=3B">I wrote this as a TLDR summary for a (still evolving) i= dea I had on the best approach to scale Bitcoin infinitely. I've written mo= re of my thoughts on the idea at =3Bhttps://seebitcoin.com/2016/09/introducing-buzz-= a-turing-complete-concept-for-scaling-bitcoin-to-infinity-and-beyond/

Does anybody think= this would be a better=2C more efficient way of implementing sidechains? I= t allows infinite scaling=2C and standardisation allows better pooling of r= esources.

Thank= s=2C

John Hardy<= /div>
john@seebitcoin.com
=
= --_d2d1fb10-3faa-4fa4-9dbb-e645565bc877_--