Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B3CC000B for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:35:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3290781324 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:35:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxtb3N41kRJm for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:35:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1528130C for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id y11so10060684eda.12 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:35:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tVjmHYHw1AHfXvgoBRszohCdVulWcB+0xt7QY468iAs=; b=HB0ZV8Ks8vPZVGNQoHhLj/C3ptzju0EX93gdPINgZyEJpHDYhULQWT+rhM/7dKTzXx fAnUGsR+EsQO1K+YehLrhHZkkmuBq2iZi45PLGYQ2VRwnUAWMvPH9/vNYN8VFgqHfSyr UHCkX+eu+isAcHMQ7G3b7BxjzKg/lCQVdw4Lv2E4WgN8lVHrtYO759hHnYx5b7qTuNyc vtjZwzJIvW2H/xTbSK+i5yc4l+xurKR3JLmkbbD3qGToXsSfaz9XR5pKFhUdaP65C2bZ OkmycpEeQpqCEP8SS8d/rk7q0YTsiEu9bhbWFqRhBr5KI+zI1ZiBxdbMIwtJyvqpi3SM VEfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tVjmHYHw1AHfXvgoBRszohCdVulWcB+0xt7QY468iAs=; b=A4mV+nj1feJ3yVYp84qpfWhRFzIzrkWw0/zzTbJdHF14tRVGgGhUO/ourofKGh/pRo Sbzf0rkK/qCF/SJBak1sjtLffxsl1OCWlTCgif8EXZsKWK+10B4VLmCGtfgmIH3WPWM+ KS0X0TliDlGVSJ/4GEZLxwkMhkYvUQ6kr2N2sa1GbAN+z6BZ5+6TCfBQ4pPHTzm4BBav BqNZB3ECtYqYW9d4rumfsuKmB8YgKueJ/t0sXY2YOFOqUnlWPrZiGKG3YcCYohopUBuY 4c8kAQylwQMWYcuyjEGx3bneThSildJw6RaZtY3hyXMUoRdwdYw5qpWcL7+HHGcOe9q4 Yucw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532C4EnavLsujPbLGeJ1D+BM6OhQanidKShux7nduGwFvWOrEpYP A0EFL3GBaL6dxkxWRIIFL6iMjsUc654oaaLRCP0cj9lC X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOFMMTX+tWP8xI60BhtceL69WQXH3NBv8jHG0SWaZFAKrwNS3AhjknfnyLycOS8FIaZxaNZe8SzLuO7IjokqU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4389:b0:410:9a9d:ab53 with SMTP id o9-20020a056402438900b004109a9dab53mr39841831edc.16.1646397344533; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:35:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220224065305.GB1965@erisian.com.au> <0a6d4fea-2451-d4e7-8001-dd75a2e140ae@gmail.com> <0af7c513-3df8-dcc8-9a14-e7e909e7fdc6@gmail.com> <4e896010-ce85-5ee9-8f7d-1d29f2271621@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 06:35:27 -0600 Message-ID: To: Paul Sztorc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e14fed05d963c01e" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 15:19:27 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recursive covenant opposition, or the absence thereof, was Re: TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and ANYPREVOUT X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:35:48 -0000 --000000000000e14fed05d963c01e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > "these sidechains are terrible" on Monday and then "these sidechains are so good they will replace the mainchain" on Tuesday Your premise is that a sidechain might come to dominate bitcoin, and that this would be better than an altcoin dominating bitcoin. Did I misunderstand you? Not quite sure why you're balking at me simply confirming your premise. > sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain .. imagine .. a zcash sidechain, and someone claims they deposited 1000 BTC A sidechain could stop supporting deposits from or withdrawals to bitcoin and completely break any relationship with the main chain. I agree this is not as sure of a thing as starting with an altcoin (which of course never has that kind of relationship with bitcoin). So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your scenario. However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant). Your anecdote about not running a full node is amusing, and I've often found myself in that position. I certainly agree different people are different and so different trade offs can be better for different people. However, the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock sidechain do better than both eg Visa and lightning? >Wouldn't life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat tr= ansactions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family of = largeblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes. I guess its not as clear to me. We agree it wouldn't significantly burden Bitcoin-only nodes, but not being a burden is not a sufficient reason to do something, only reason to not prevent it. But what are the benefits to a user of that chain? Slightly lower fees than main bitcoin? More decentralization than Visa or Venmo? Doesn't lightning already do better on both accounts? On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:00 PM Paul Sztorc wrote: > On 3/1/2022 12:39 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote: > > This entire issue is avoided completely, if all the chains --decentralize= d and centralized-- and in the same monetary unit. Then, the monetary netwo= rk effects never interfere, and the decentralized chain is always guarantee= d to exist. > > It sounds like what you're saying is that without side chains, everyone m= ight switch entirely to some altcoin and bitcoin will basically die. And at= that point, the insecurity of that coin people switched to can be heavily = exploited by some attacker(s). Is that right? > > Yes, precisely. > > Its an interesting thought experiment. However, it leads me to wonder: if= a sidechain gets so popular that it dominates the main chain, why would pe= ople keep that main chain around at all? > > For some reason, this is a very popular question. I suppose if you believ= e in "one size fits all" chain philosophy (see comment below), it makes sen= se to say "these sidechains are terrible" on Monday and then "these sidecha= ins are so good they will replace the mainchain" on Tuesday. > > In any event, sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain (as I see i= t). For example, imagine that you are on a zcash sidechain, and someone cla= ims they deposited 1000 BTC, from Bitcoin Core into this sidechain? Do you = give them 1000 z-BTC, or not? Without the mainchain, > you can't tell. > > If you run the Bip300 DriveNet demo software (drivechain.info/releases), = you will see for yourself: the test-sidechains are absolutely inert, UNTIL = they have rpc access to the mainchain. (Exactly the same way that a LN node= needs a Bitcoin Core node.) > > > > > someone is actually in the wrong, if they proactively censor an experim= ent of any type. If a creator is willing to stand behind something, then it= should be tried. > > > it makes no difference if users have their funds stolen from a centrali= zed Solana contract or from a bip300 centralized bit-Solana sidechain. I do= n't see why the tears shed would be any different. > > I agree with you. My point was not that we should stop anyone from doing = this. My point was only that we shouldn't advocate for ideas we think aren'= t good. You were advocating for a "largeblock sidechain", and unless you ha= ve good reasons to think that is an idea likely to succeed and want to shar= e them with us, then you shouldn't be advocating for that. But certainly if= someone *does* think so and has their own reasons, I wouldn't want to cens= or or stop them. But I wouldn't advocate for them to do it unless their ide= as were convincing to me, because I know enough to know the dangers of larg= e block blockchains. > > Yes, I strongly agree, that we should only advocate for ideas we believe = in. > > I do not believe in naive layer1 largeblockerism. But I do believe in sid= echain largeblockism. > > Something funny once happened to me when I was on a Bitcoin conference pa= nel*. There were three people: myself, a Blockstream person, and an (ex)Bit= Pay person. The first two of us, were valiantly defending the small block p= osition. I gave my usual speech: that node costs must remain low, so that p= eople can run full nodes. The largeblocker mentioned that they ran many nod= es (including BCH nodes etc) and didn't mind the cost, so I disclosed --in = a good-natured way-- that I do not even run a BTC full node myself (out of = choice). Thus, I was yammering about software I wasn't even running, I had = no skin in the game! Lo and behold -- my Blockstream smallblocker ally-on-t= he-panel, immediately admitted to everyone that he did not run a full node = either. The only node-runner was the largeblocker. The audience found this = very amusing (as did I). > > We smallblockers, justified our sinful nodeless behavior, as follows (par= aphrasing): we receive BTC mainly from people that we know (and have a long= -term relationship with); our receipts are not time sensitive; we are not p= aid in BTC that often; if payments turned out to be forged we would have en= ormous recourse against our counterparties; etc. > > We did not run full nodes, because we did not need to draw on the blockch= ain's powers, **for those transactions**. > > Which is my point: people are different, and transactions are different. = I make many transactions today, with VISA or Venmo. These are not censorshi= p-resistant, but somehow I survive the month, without bursting into flames. > > Wouldn't life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat t= ransactions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family of= largeblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes. > > Unlike layer1-largeblockism, no one running Bitcoin Core ever needs to se= e these 'btc' transactions (the same as we don't see them today, on account= of them not existing at all); they do not burden Bitcoin Core full nodes. = Hence why it seems like a good idea to me. > > An SPV-wallet-of-a-largeblock-sidechain, is of course, a *disgrace* compa= red to a full-node-of-smallblock-mainchain-Bitcoin-Core. But, it is emphati= cally superior to Venmo / VISA or even "custodial LN". And certainly superi= or to nothing. > > Paul > > * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DV3cvH2eWqfU > > --000000000000e14fed05d963c01e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0"these= sidechains are terrible" on Monday and then "these sidechains ar= e so good they will replace the mainchain" on Tuesday

Your premise is that a sidechain might come to dominate bit= coin, and that this would be better than an altcoin dominating bitcoin. Did= I misunderstand you? Not quite sure why you're balking at me simply co= nfirming your premise.

> <= span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">sidechains cannot exist without their m= ainchain .. imagine .. a zcash sidechain, and someone claims they deposited= 1000 BTC

=
A sidechain could stop supp= orting deposits from or withdrawals to bitcoin and completely break any rel= ationship with the main chain. I agree this is not as sure of a thing as st= arting with an altcoin (which of course never has that kind of relationship= with bitcoin). So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your s= cenario. However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely= solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant).

Your anecdote about not running a full node is= amusing, and I've often found myself in that position. I certainly agr= ee different people are different and so different trade offs can be better= for different people. However,= the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock sidechain do better than= both eg Visa and lightning? 
>Wouldn&=
#39;t life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat transa=
ctions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family of larg=
eblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes.
I guess it= s not as clear to me. We agree it wouldn't significantly burden Bitcoin= -only nodes, but not being a burden is not a sufficient reason to do someth= ing, only reason to not prevent it. But what are the benefits to a user of = that chain? Slightly lower fees than main bitcoin? More decentralization th= an Visa or Venmo? Doesn't lightning already do better on both accounts?= =C2=A0


On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at = 6:00 PM Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20 
On 3/1/2022 12:39 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote:
<=
span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">This entire issue is avoided completely=
, if all the chains --decentralized and centralized-- and in the same monet=
ary unit. Then, the monetary network effects never interfere, and the decen=
tralized chain is always guaranteed to exist.

      

        

          
It sounds like what you=
're saying is that without side chains, everyone might switch entirely =
to some altcoin and bitcoin will basically die. And at that point, the inse=
curity of that coin people switched to can be heavily exploited by some att=
acker(s). Is that right?

        

      

    
Yes, precisely.

    

      

        

          
Its an interesting thou=
ght experiment. However, it leads me to wonder: if a sidechain gets so popu=
lar that it dominates the main chain, why would people keep that main chain=
 around at all?

        

      

    

    
For some reason, this is a very popular question. I suppose if you=
 believe in "one size fits all" chain philosophy (see comment bel=
ow), it makes sense to say "these sidechains are terrible" on Mon=
day and then "these sidechains are so good they will replace the mainc=
hain" on Tuesday.

In any event, sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain (as I see it)=
. For example, imagine that you are on a zcash sidechain, and someone claim=
s they deposited 1000 BTC, from Bitcoin Core into this sidechain? Do you gi=
ve them 1000 z-BTC, or not? Without the mainchain,=20
you can't tell.

If you run the Bip300 DriveNet demo software (drivechain.info/releases), you will se=
e for yourself: the test-sidechains are absolutely inert, UNTIL they have r=
pc access to the mainchain. (Exactly the same way that a LN node needs a Bi=
tcoin Core node.)




    

      

        

          
> someone is actually in the wrong, if they proacti=
vely censor an experiment of any type. If a creator is willing to stand beh=
ind something, then it should be tried.

        

        

          
> it makes no difference if users have their funds =
stolen from a centralized Solana contract or from a bip300 centralized bit-=
Solana sidechain. I don't see why the tears shed would be any different=
.

        

        

          
I agree with you. My po=
int was not that we should stop anyone from doing this. My point was only t=
hat we shouldn't advocate for ideas we think aren't good. You were =
advocating for a "largeblock sidechain", and unless you have good=
 reasons to think that is an idea likely to succeed and want to share them =
with us, then you shouldn't be advocating for that. But certainly if so=
meone *does* think so and has their own reasons, I wouldn't want to cen=
sor or stop them. But I wouldn't advocate for them to do it unless thei=
r ideas were convincing to me, because I know enough to know the dangers of=
 large block blockchains. 

        

      

    

    
Yes, I strongly agree, that we should only advocate for ideas we b=
elieve in.

I do not believe in naive layer1 largeblockerism. But I do believe in sidec=
hain largeblockism.

Something funny once happened to me when I was on a Bitcoin conference pane=
l*. There were three people: myself, a Blockstream person, and an (ex)BitPa=
y person. The first two of us, were valiantly defending the small block pos=
ition. I gave my usual speech: that node costs must remain low, so that peo=
ple can run full nodes. The largeblocker mentioned that they ran many nodes=
 (including BCH nodes etc) and didn't mind the cost, so I disclosed --i=
n a good-natured way-- that I do not even run a BTC full node myself (out o=
f choice). Thus, I was yammering about software I wasn't even running, =
I had no skin in the game! Lo and behold -- my Blockstream smallblocker all=
y-on-the-panel, immediately admitted to everyone that he did not run a full=
 node either. The only node-runner was the largeblocker. The audience found=
 this very amusing (as did I).

We smallblockers, justified our sinful nodeless behavior, as follows (parap=
hrasing): we receive BTC mainly from people that we know (and have a long-t=
erm relationship with); our receipts are not time sensitive; we are not pai=
d in BTC that often; if payments turned out to be forged we would have enor=
mous recourse against our counterparties; etc.

We did not run full nodes, because we did not need to draw on the blockchai=
n's powers, **for those transactions**.

Which is my point: people are different, and transactions are different. I =
make many transactions today, with VISA or Venmo. These are not censorship-=
resistant, but somehow I survive the month, without bursting into flames.

Wouldn't life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat=
 transactions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family =
of largeblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes.

Unlike layer1-largeblockism, no one running Bitcoin Core ever needs to see =
these 'btc' transactions (the same as we don't see them today, =
on account of them not existing at all); they do not burden Bitcoin Core fu=
ll nodes. Hence why it seems like a good idea to me.

An SPV-wallet-of-a-largeblock-sidechain, is of course, a *disgrace* compare=
d to a full-node-of-smallblock-mainchain-Bitcoin-Core. But, it is emphatica=
lly superior to Venmo / VISA or even "custodial LN". And certainl=
y superior to nothing.

Paul

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DV3cvH2eWqfU


  





--000000000000e14fed05d963c01e--