Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:50:38 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20170717215038.GB8227@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<01194110-04f0-82f5-cd5e-0101822fa2b1@gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eVZQ5FM7AohEMocUobj4jhFvdb-Uc+DhAmSSFZ3_funrw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eVZQ5FM7AohEMocUobj4jhFvdb-Uc+DhAmSSFZ3_funrw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap [Update]
Precedence: list


--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:49:22PM -0400, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> "it was ACKed by everyone else that I heard from"  - I don't think you
> should read into that much.
>=20
> I felt like this whole conversation was putting the cart before the horse.
> You might very well have some good ideas in your roadmap update, to tell
> you the truth, I didn't even read it.
> But I don't think we should be taking relatively new/untested ideas such =
as
> Drivechain and sticking them on a roadmap.  There is a tendency in this
> community to hear about the latest and greatest idea and immediately fixa=
te
> on it as our salvation. I'm very happy that you are doing this work and
> that others are researching a wide variety of ideas.  But please, lets be
> conservative and flexible with how we evolve Bitcoin.  We don't even know
> if or when we'll get segwit yet.

Agreed!

A closely related example is my own Treechains work, which got a bunch of
excitement when I first published the idea. But would I have wanted it on a
roadmap? Hell no: sure enough, as it got more peer review others (and mysel=
f!)
found that it was going to be a harder than it initially looked to actually=
 get
into production.

Drivechains is definitely in that situation right now.

Also don't forget that proper security peer review takes a *lot* of work. I
myself have a todo list item to respond to Paul's post on Drivechains, but I
need to spend a few days to do that and just haven't had the time (not to
mention that no-one is paying me to do general Bitcoin dev work right now).

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZbTEsAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7M7QIAKU6za0M6Z7Bv8H6oezfbeAl
5eYKPl8Br/aF6rLVYLZn5SLTFFmY477iubprkI624saMu+WaBMFM2bHs9BK0ITu8
MrK/ogI9+CkNgScpnawwIHHop9G58K1Boz/Rdltgfun5+tduXVmsXv6x3yF261mv
Dr2ZYwWroP7d2IpAXZxxI2gr6iOKd7KZBm+nt8WunTYnqZoF89OP6zAJ8CZpFpTQ
ZzXGBs1ohNw+R4evobxfTGD2Przoles2JFO5RwDRWLs8Rvc8hLKGkiUh66VCwRr4
QkZzwiaXLQuD/uUcHE/NcWZsTkxF7CwNy/0KKVBdvzUxQyAFcnD8ThIWBb1phKI=
=ANOZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v--