MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <55C75FC8.6070807@jrn.me.uk> <201508092346.20301.luke@dashjr.org>
	<55C8EE2A.3030309@jrn.me.uk> <201508101841.00173.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:44:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpaYLM0rUZ8QDw_cFnmogsu-FZz5Z5fZOJ_ek4cQti6iw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative chain support for payment protocol
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Genesis blocks are not necessarily unique. For example, Litecoin and
>> > Feathercoin share the same one.

That's a fatal design in Feathercoin, not a mistake all altchains have
done and certainly irrelevant to Bitcoin.

> Regtest isn't really a network at all, just a testing mode of Bitcoin Core...

Regtest is a testchain just like testnet2 and testnet3. Testchains are
the only reason why Bitcoin Core supports multiple chains using
CChainParams.

> Sorry, I meant to stress that BIPs are for *Bitcoin* improvements
> specifically. Things which only improve altcoins, while a perfectly fine thing
> to standardise, are outside the scope of what belongs in a BIP.
>
> Perhaps, however, this could be made to kill 2 birds with one stone, by
> ensuring it addresses the need for payments made of bitcoins on a sidechain?
> For this, a merchant who wants a sidechain payment would presumably be able to
> provide a script from the main chain already, but an extension allowing
> payment directly on the sidechain (at the customer's choice) avoids the need
> to round-trip it...

For the payment protocol testchains, sidechains and altcoins are all
quite similar.
But it is fine to just focus on testchains if sidechains and altcoins
are out of scope.