MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Concept ACK.

If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scale


I strongly disagree with that statement.

Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a scalability
improvement, but merely enabling users to opt-in for another security model.

While obviously any future with wider adoption will need different
technologies that have different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose
their security model, I don't think this particular one is interesting. In
terms of validation cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity
increase on chain, while simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners
being able to vote to steal your money.

Cheers,

-- 
Pieter

--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, &quot;Chris Stewart via b=
itcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wro=
te:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-8083649854125578197m_-8=
689624958029859536quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Concept ACK.<br><br><=
/div>If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scal=
e</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">I strongly disagree with that statement.</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains=
 ideas, are not a scalability improvement, but merely enabling users to opt=
-in for another security model.<br><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">While obviou=
sly any future with wider adoption will need different technologies that ha=
ve different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose their security model,=
 I don&#39;t think this particular one is interesting. In terms of validati=
on cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity increase on chain, whi=
le simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners being able to vote to ste=
al your money.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div>Cheers,<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bloc=
kquote class=3D"m_-8083649854125578197m_-8689624958029859536quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div>

--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2--