MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7lMVV5tc0S5aSzZV8305yOhRd8AWufZhxToS31hmq6SGpiMC2eLZsvHYcsyj_HzFo6ip5p6CtKXRiHxxRVM3IHsCnm8qXWJT_iheDM3HYZU=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAES+R-q6v=Qc2zZgczNfKhrBtZ0kCt0Um90miAMGB0npp4zAKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF5CFkheg5U0zPLSq9ow2aFZept8nGN94q894yRjiuvAY5s7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAES+R-pHkDHSPpTcyJyEv2rSWOvAkG+zUqs8hPwbHigejyFvDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7lMVV5tc0S5aSzZV8305yOhRd8AWufZhxToS31hmq6SGpiMC2eLZsvHYcsyj_HzFo6ip5p6CtKXRiHxxRVM3IHsCnm8qXWJT_iheDM3HYZU=@protonmail.com>
From: Patrick Sharp <psharp.x13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:15:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAES+R-of6zkZi0Wx191buWBvrTzmO8LjcfJ6dJ7-a9CtwQK+bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: bitcoin side chain implementation
Precedence: list

--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

By magic I meant that that it happens all by itself without any extra
configuring.

Thank you for your responses. I have been enlightened. As ZmnSCPxj has
pointed out lightning network and pruning accomplishes everything I set out
to accomplish. And sharding is exactly what I had in mind. I will keep this
in the back of my mind and perhaps even attempt will implement it if it
still seems worth doing later.

You guys are totally awesome!!!

I here by withdraw my proposal for the time being.

-patrick

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Patrick,
>
>
> >Non official chains suffer from the fact that few if any miners are going
> to mine them so they lack security on par with the main chain.
>
> That is why most sidechain proposals use some kind of merge mining, where
> a commitment to another chain's block is published on the Bitcoin chain.
> Drivechain has "blind" merge mining, my recent "mainstake" proposal
> publishses entire sidechain block headers on the mainchain.  These
> techniques provide security that is nearer to mainchain security.
>
> >And more over most
> >users aren't going to use them because its not magic.
>
> No technology is magic, so I do not understand this sentence.
>
> >If my ultimate goal is official side chains that include part of the
> reward such security is at parity between all chains and that the official
> software
> >automatically enable users to distribute their burden, would my course of
> action be to build an external proof-of-concept side chain of side chains?
> >or do you doubt that official reward splitting chains will ever find
> their way into bitcoin core?
>
> I think it would be better to term your system as "sharding" rather than
> "sidechain".
>
> If and when we are able to actually agree upon some kind of
> sidechain-enabling proposal that is acceptable to the majority of Bitcoin
> Core developers, then yes, you should make a sidechain that is capable of
> sharding.  Sharding a distributed ledger while ensuring correct operation
> is a hard problem; in particular it is almost impossible to protect against
> double-spending unless you can see all officially-added-to-the-chain
> transactions.
>
> See: https://petertodd.org/2015/why-scaling-bitcoin-with-
> sharding-is-very-hard
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">By magic I meant that that it happens all by itself withou=
t any extra configuring.<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your responses. I=
 have been enlightened. As=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">ZmnSCPxj h=
as pointed out lightning network and pruning=C2=A0accomplishes everything I=
 set out to accomplish. And sharding is exactly what I had in mind. I will =
keep this in the back of my mind and perhaps even attempt will implement it=
 if it still seems worth doing later.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">You guy=
s are totally awesome!!!</span></div><div><br></div><div>I here by withdraw=
 my proposal for the time being.</div><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px">-patrick</span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM, ZmnSCPxj <span d=
ir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><div>Good morning Patrick,<br></div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><=
div><br></div><div>&gt;Non official chains suffer from the fact that few if=
 any miners are going to mine them so they lack security on par with the ma=
in chain.<br></div><div><br></div></span><div>That is why most sidechain pr=
oposals use some kind of merge mining, where a commitment to another chain&=
#39;s block is published on the Bitcoin chain.=C2=A0 Drivechain has &quot;b=
lind&quot; merge mining, my recent &quot;mainstake&quot; proposal publishse=
s entire sidechain block headers on the mainchain.=C2=A0 These techniques p=
rovide security that is nearer to mainchain security.<br></div><span class=
=3D""><div><br></div><div>&gt;And more over most <br></div><div>&gt;users a=
ren&#39;t going to use them because its not magic.<br></div><div><br></div>=
</span><div>No technology is magic, so I do not understand this sentence.<b=
r></div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><div>&gt;If my ultimate goal is off=
icial side chains that include part of the reward such security is at parit=
y between all chains and that the official software <br></div><div>&gt;auto=
matically enable users to distribute their burden, would my course of actio=
n be to build an external proof-of-concept side chain of side chains?<br></=
div><div>&gt;or do you doubt that official reward splitting chains will eve=
r find their way into bitcoin core?<br></div><div><br></div></span><div>I t=
hink it would be better to term your system as &quot;sharding&quot; rather =
than &quot;sidechain&quot;.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If and when we are=
 able to actually agree upon some kind of sidechain-enabling proposal that =
is acceptable to the majority of Bitcoin Core developers, then yes, you sho=
uld make a sidechain that is capable of sharding.=C2=A0 Sharding a distribu=
ted ledger while ensuring correct operation is a hard problem; in particula=
r it is almost impossible to protect against double-spending unless you can=
 see all officially-added-to-the-chain transactions.<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>See: <a href=3D"https://petertodd.org/2015/why-scaling-bitcoin-with-=
sharding-is-very-hard" target=3D"_blank">https://petertodd.org/2015/<wbr>wh=
y-scaling-bitcoin-with-<wbr>sharding-is-very-hard</a><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Regards,<br></div><div>ZmnSCPxj<br></div></blockquote></div><br></d=
iv>

--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8--