To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
	Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d53dc5d2-b761-53c3-3bb8-0d8d39cbda37@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:36:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------3942536F8EE65F365D786F97"
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3942536F8EE65F365D786F97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pieter,

I think that you have misrepresented Chris' view by taking it out of
context. His complete quote reads "If drivechains are successful they
should be viewed as the way we scale -- not hard forking the protocol."
Chris is comparing Drivechains/sidechains to a hard fork.

You went on to "disagree", but every point of contention you introduced
was something that would apply to both drivechain-sourced capacity and
hardfork-sourced capacity. Neither improves scalability, and both allow
users only the opportunity to select a different security model. If I
understand you, the point at which a security model does not become
"interesting" to you, would be the exact same point in the drivechain
and hardfork worlds. Both, at any rate, have the same effect on
"validation cost to auditors".

The only true difference is the "extra risk of miners being able to vote
to steal your money", but as I have pointed out on this mailing list
several times, I do not actually believe that there is any marginal risk
-- miners can already "vote to steal your money" in the double-spend and
ln-channel-theft contexts. I have also argued that the "risk" is
actually desirable in an opt-in context, because it puts the burden of
proof on miners/developers (to convince users that they should move over
to the sidechain). Since their sidechain coins cannot appreciate in
value relative to the mainchain coins, users would only opt-in if they
felt that they were sufficiently compensated for any and all risks.
Hence, it is difficult to list this item as a drawback when, to the
user, it is a strict improvement (at least, by any epistemological
standard that I can think of). If you have new objections to these
claims, I'm sure we would all benefit from hearing them, myself most of a=
ll.

Paul


On 7/11/2017 4:01 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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,
>
> --=20
> Pieter
>


--------------3942536F8EE65F365D786F97
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Pieter, <br>
      <br>
      I think that you have misrepresented Chris' view by taking it out
      of context. His complete quote reads "If drivechains are
      successful they should be viewed as the way we scale -- not hard
      forking the protocol." Chris is comparing Drivechains/sidechains
      to a hard fork.<br>
      <br>
      You went on to "disagree", but every point of contention you
      introduced was something that would apply to both
      drivechain-sourced capacity and hardfork-sourced capacity. Neither
      improves scalability, and both allow users only the opportunity to
      select a different security model. If I understand you, the point
      at which a security model does not become "interesting" to you,
      would be the exact same point in the drivechain and hardfork
      worlds. Both, at any rate, have the same effect on "validation
      cost to auditors".<br>
      <br>
      The only true difference is the "extra risk of miners being able
      to vote to steal your money", but as I have pointed out on this
      mailing list several times, I do not actually believe that there
      is any marginal risk -- miners can already "vote to steal your
      money" in the double-spend and ln-channel-theft contexts. I have
      also argued that the "risk" is actually desirable in an opt-in
      context, because it puts the burden of proof on miners/developers
      (to convince users that they should move over to the sidechain).
      Since their sidechain coins cannot appreciate in value relative to
      the mainchain coins, users would only opt-in if they felt that
      they were sufficiently compensated for any and all risks. Hence,
      it is difficult to list this item as a drawback when, to the user,
      it is a strict improvement (at least, by any epistemological
      standard that I can think of). If you have new objections to these
      claims, I'm sure we would all benefit from hearing them, myself
      most of all.<br>
      <br>
      Paul<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 7/11/2017 4:01 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="auto">
          <div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">
            <div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris
              Stewart via bitcoin-dev" &lt;<a
                href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;
              wrote:<br type="attribution">
              <blockquote
                class="m_-8083649854125578197m_-8689624958029859536quote"
                style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                solid;padding-left:1ex">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>Concept ACK.<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      If drivechains are successful they should be
                      viewed as the way we scale</div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto">I strongly disagree with that statement.</div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto">Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains
            ideas, are not a scalability improvement, but merely
            enabling users to opt-in for another security model.<br>
            <br>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto">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.</div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div>Cheers,<br>
            <br>
            -- <br>
          </div>
          <div>Pieter<br>
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------3942536F8EE65F365D786F97--