References: <24f2b447-a237-45eb-ef9f-1a62533fad5c@gmail.com>
	<83671224-f6ff-16a9-81c0-20ab578aec9d@gmail.com>
	<AAC86547-7904-4475-9966-138130019567@taoeffect.com>
	<6764b8af-bb4c-615d-5af5-462127bbbe36@gmail.com>
	<F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
To: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
Message-ID: <117f6a96-6d90-778a-d87a-be72592e31c5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:26:56 -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: <F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------1EEDB2D43D9930B9651185F8"
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain RfD -- Follow Up
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1EEDB2D43D9930B9651185F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The confusion below stems from his conflation of several different ideas.=


I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between several types of
user (or, "modes" of use if you prefer):

[DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and is
running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of the new
rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add drivechain
functionality and individual drivechains).
[DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using sidechai=
ns.
[DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but who
ever actually uses the sidechains.
[DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.


On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:
>
> I am now looking closer again at step number 4 in the Drivechain
> specification [2]:
>
>     4. Everyone waits for a period of, say, 3 days. This gives
>     everyone an opportunity to make sure the same WT^ is in both the
>     Bitcoin coinbase and the Sidechain header. If they=E2=80=99re diffe=
rent,
>     everyone has plenty of time to contact each other, figure out what
>     is going on, and restart the process until its right.
>
> It seems to me that where our disagreement lies is in this point.
> The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of anyone-can-pay is
> the same as P2SH (and in later emails you reference SegWit as well).
> Is this really true?
FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to push
the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting period up
to several months.

[DC#0] Yes
[DC#1] Yes
[DC#2] Yes
[DC#3] Yes

Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will just
assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone who
still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].

(And this is the main advantage of DC over extension blocks).


> 2. Per the question in [1], it's my understanding that P2SH
> transactions contain all of the information within themselves for full
> nodes to act as a check on miners mishandling the anyone-can-spend
> nature of P2SH transactions. However, that does not seem to be the
> case with WT^ transactions.
[DC#0] They do.
[DC#1] They do.
[DC#2] They do.
[DC#3] They do.

Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is vali=
d.


> In P2SH txns, there is no need for anyone to, as the Drivechain spec
> says, "to contact each other, figure out what is going on". Everything
> just automatically works.
There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for [DC#0] or [DC#1].

[DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding what
is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.


> If the security of WT^ transactions could be brought up to actually be
> in line with the security of P2SH and SegWit transactions, then I
> would have far less to object to.
Somehow I doubt it.


Paul

--------------1EEDB2D43D9930B9651185F8
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">The confusion below stems from his
      conflation of several different ideas.<br>
      <br>
      I will try to explicitly clarify a distinction between several
      types of user (or, "modes" of use if you prefer):<br>
      <br>
      [DC#0] -- Someone who does not upgrade their Bitcoin software (and
      is running, say, 0.13). However, they experience the effects of
      the new rules which miners add (as per the soft fork[s] to add
      drivechain functionality and individual drivechains).<br>
      [DC#1] -- Someone who always upgrades to the latest version of the
      Bitcoin software, but otherwise has no interest in running/using
      sidechains.<br>
      [DC#2] -- Someone who upgrades to the latest Bitcoin version, and
      decides to also become a full node of one or more sidechains, but
      who ever actually uses the sidechains.<br>
      [DC#3] -- Someone who upgrades their software, runs sidechain full
      nodes, and actively moves money to and from these.<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 7/12/2017 6:43 PM, Tao Effect wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div class=""><br>
      </div>
      <div class="">I am now looking closer again at step number 4 in
        the Drivechain specification [2]:</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
        0px;" class="">
        <div class="">
          <div class="">4. Everyone waits for a period of, say, 3 days.
            This gives everyone an opportunity to make sure the same WT^
            is in both the Bitcoin coinbase and the Sidechain header. If
            they’re different, everyone has plenty of time to contact
            each other, figure out what is going on, and restart the
            process until its right.</div>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <div class="">It seems to me that where our disagreement lies is
        in this point.</div>
      <div class="">The Drivechain spec seems to claim that its use of
        anyone-can-pay is the same as P2SH (and in later emails you
        reference SegWit as well). Is this really true?</div>
    </blockquote>
    FYI that document is nearly two years old, and although it is still
    overwhelmingly accurate, new optimizations allow us (I think) to
    push the waiting period to several weeks and the total ACK counting
    period up to several months.<br>
    <br>
    [DC#0] Yes<br>
    [DC#1] Yes<br>
    [DC#2] Yes<br>
    [DC#3] Yes<br>
    <br>
    Because if a node doesn't have the sidechain's information, it will
    just assume every withdrawal is valid. This is comparable to someone
    who still hasn't upgraded to support P2SH, in cases [DC#0] and [#1].<br>
    <br>
    (And this is the main advantage of DC over extension blocks).<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">2. Per the question in [1], it's my understanding
        that P2SH transactions contain all of the information within
        themselves for full nodes to act as a check on miners
        mishandling the anyone-can-spend nature of P2SH transactions.
        However, that does not seem to be the case with WT^
        transactions.</div>
    </blockquote>
    [DC#0] They do.<br>
    [DC#1] They do.<br>
    [DC#2] They do.<br>
    [DC#3] They do.<br>
    <br>
    Again, from the perspective of a mainchain user, every withdrawal is
    valid.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">In P2SH txns, there is no need for anyone to, as the
        Drivechain spec says, "to contact each other, figure out what is
        going on". Everything just automatically works.</div>
    </blockquote>
    There is no *need* to this in Drivechain, either, for [DC#0] or
    [DC#1].<br>
    <br>
    [DC#2] and [DC#3] would certainly have an interest in understanding
    what is going on, but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
    with Bitcoin Core and so is off-topic for this mailing list.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:F2C3A9F4-07AB-41B9-B915-9E33EE313F9E@taoeffect.com">
      <div class="">If the security of WT^ transactions could be brought
        up to actually be in line with the security of P2SH and SegWit
        transactions, then I would have far less to object to.</div>
    </blockquote>
    Somehow I doubt it.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Paul<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------1EEDB2D43D9930B9651185F8--