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 29110BBC for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:32:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com (mail-pf0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A58BE9 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s66so45087838pfs.1 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:32:28 -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-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=LxtGrA4oGsN9c/qcy6HQNlpYwMlmlIwhXqtovmJ9R8Q=; b=CrGCli2LFpdrvZXHwshKCGNGzsknTQ9RsPMllhiVGwVcvYpwSM45/VUJCVefo+D3oD npm84U1Y2Fd7WItis+Ox2IM/xBebe+ot/NCfjtMhqiGWntVr906R+G2vHigrHq+qlUCd oY0MFNTvEM9R5w7G9ESaWBSWYeOAliXltl/katndR9HY93GSQMWZ68BBHmPeuPYDCDeS kSkwtxAhXYapJTDNFTiKUKSScAXj3GAIMul43b3A+uQAfatOzQAQax1n4MRCrhuxou+3 YqqFC8cwbn0YbstEdiZMbWEKakX5nZhylANVt2e84yl8VLp3dy3F7Le8iqa3OCYtLh99 LMFg== 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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=LxtGrA4oGsN9c/qcy6HQNlpYwMlmlIwhXqtovmJ9R8Q=; b=dcbdYmQwaoCT9aNVrfomSpf7bv9piXIMnjq7dz/Hmm7L5s9NUKGQon2VSKWuJrY9Pd w1Sh3V5esmLdQZgxvVKO/OPNOG9lfxJyRSa4VQIbG10qGfWVTOjz5/tcTzHKJCuXtLoo iCqZZRIatI+jonvTBzGeKacyCBKSbdPQItIsfLcW1h9HNQOrIQWt02uD3nL/qRMpUXcK RgmYtYVWeQ15daus5of4fkQfi/EQBP4yoRHQfLLiqaHL3NejfPW53wYE/8t4YjAwJdOi 5F2pzhr1jVDaG0UbPw2BtQDtEVx+CrexdbtL+9FSAF99EURbY1ibgv2Pgu4lSQdD4AWO vKUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyRF7Y9zhk5oZFt+IuGIqe5De9nSNeJ1yDsSZBgj1UQErqwJi/b AgaJG6cSKplutUqB+rY= X-Received: by 10.84.193.129 with SMTP id f1mr26191017pld.129.1497821547668; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:32:27 -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 i27sm4707688pfk.1.2017.06.18.14.32.25 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:32:26 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <24f2b447-a237-45eb-ef9f-1a62533fad5c@gmail.com> <141a0cd1-9d4f-c137-a349-17248f9cafd4@gmail.com> From: CryptAxe Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:27:52 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:39:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain -- Request for Discussion 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: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:32:29 -0000 > >OP_RETURN > > I think it is redundant here to have the , we can > implicitly assume what the sidechain_id is since we have a fixed set > of drivechains. I.e. mining reward is index 0, mimblewimble sidechain > is index 1, etc. CryptAxe has specific indexes defined already in his > implementation:=20 > https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/blob/mainchainBMM/src/sid= echain.h#L26-L30. > Since the sidechain has the sidechain BMM headers that they want the LD (bribe) data for, I think that they could specifically request LD data relevant only to that sidechain by providing a list of hashes to the mainchain, and the mainchain can return a list of boolean values telling the sidechain if the LD data exists. That way the data never even has to go over the network, just a verification that it exists on the mainchain and we can drop the sidechain_id from the script. > I think it would be wise to include a version byte to allow us to > upgrade this commitment structure in the future. Similar to how > witness program's are now versioned. Agreed, we need that. > > > OP_BRIBE_VERIFY > > If is an argument that OP_BRIBE_VERIFY takes, doesn't > that mean the mainchain miner has to validate this *is* the actual > block height on the sidechain? Does that take the 'blindness' away > from BMM? No, OP_BRIBE (the old version) didn't care about the block height. Where the blockheight was relevant is when bribe data is added to LD. In order to be added to LD, the bribe needed to either be a fork (block height less than the sidechain tip height) or extending the current side-chain (block height =3D sidechain tip height + 1). The goal of this was to allo= w for reorgs, and also make it so that people cannot skip forward (which would never be valid so it's a waste of time and space) so that the sidechain makes progress. With the new design that we have been talking about, I think that we will need to drop this requirement from the mainchain, and have the sidechain handle filtering out invalid LD data / only requesting the verification of LD data that they know to be valid as far as chain order goes. > > Overall, I think we need to work on the commitment structure to the > coinbase tx. Agreed. It might be helpful if you outlined the idea you had on IRC to the mailing list. > If I understand the current implementation correctly we can have up to > 256 OP_RETURNs embedded in the coinbase tx signifying new blocks mined > on drivechains.. this seems less than ideal. It might be prudent to > make these outputs ANYONECANSPEND, and then have miners spending these > outputs to themselves for every block mined.. maybe this doesn't have > a benefit over using OP_RETURNs though? > > The structure could be something like: > > > and then in a subsequent block the miner spends that output to > themselves. I will admit I'm not super familiar with how OP_RETURNs > work with the UTXO set -- maybe this scheme doesn't have any benefit. > > -Chris I might be wrong but I thought that OP_RETURN outputs do not go into the UTXO set. Anyone else want to chime in?