path: root/93/3433f621b3a490ef0ef07fca987582a21ab0eb

Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B3CC000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  4 Mar 2022 12:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id y11so10060684eda.12
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 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: <CAMZUoK=pkZuovtifBzdqhoyegzG+9hRTFEc7fG9nZPDK4KbU3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220224065305.GB1965@erisian.com.au>
 <bQvm5sSOMGRKR2udDFTNCJlOv_2vuIjkkBsoYqi4463y8ZjFDY4kxVvJEz7yv0GfxbyrMo-eOhOnEnd6sKPrWSk6PXn8KNerRlWsiGsWZRU=@protonmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaVN4iAzfDKEQs2hmoQOHtToyPao1FgDCsMTJvt7pbq5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <fV9nkjr6K9fQWJWXtO4b3uZGzpHvDNdQa89X73yUB2YVsvuNVPDqsJln88pEef1fzHsui-qnneXdmYsO7CDibxMrm9PBDOO0Ls8RV1Bx1BI=@protonmail.com>
 <0a6d4fea-2451-d4e7-8001-dd75a2e140ae@gmail.com>
 <Q4kn8GILUIWV5OC37HgXG0xW99smVENze4bDw0esWqDsniVvokPAUN3muW-kNFkBMQlr5x7JlQAjUnmCN04W0uA_XCLxlLlBENNybBhFurc=@protonmail.com>
 <0af7c513-3df8-dcc8-9a14-e7e909e7fdc6@gmail.com>
 <Ee7fnlpSPyqoJ4X0o5M4uEDZfEvLO2ljhhADYc2QgmSworKdNMJelLbH5BSzcRO_-fZ7aWIvgZXM8bYC0CdYL4sVwi59pkYAD81Z2psajuk=@protonmail.com>
 <4e896010-ce85-5ee9-8f7d-1d29f2271621@gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDbK3geQT5a4g0j+twt5TJEoxt0KvWQUsyUeuU8ugH3a8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <e5c5ba2c-8183-070a-e8e4-4e100dbb15ed@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e5c5ba2c-8183-070a-e8e4-4e100dbb15ed@gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 06:35:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDak4=ter4UT6VHbAWyA4ckkHc6zORsX4JZ3nF6qz0tb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e14fed05d963c01e"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 15:19:27 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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 <truthcoin@gmail.com> 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

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0<span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">&quot;these=
 sidechains are terrible&quot; on Monday and then &quot;these sidechains ar=
e so good they will replace the mainchain&quot; on Tuesday</span><div><span=
 style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"white-=
space:pre-wrap">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&#39;re balking at me simply co=
nfirming your premise. </span></div><div><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wra=
p"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">&gt; </span><=
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</span></div><div><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span>=
</div><div><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">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&#39;t think its quite accurate to say it completely=
 solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant).</span></d=
iv><div><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><span st=
yle=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">Your anecdote about not running a full node is=
 amusing, and I&#39;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. </span><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">However,=
 the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock sidechain do better than=
 both eg Visa and lightning? </span></div><pre style=3D"white-space:pre-wra=
p"><span style=3D"font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;white-space:normal=
">&gt;</span><span style=3D"font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">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.</span></pre>I guess it=
s not as clear to me. We agree it wouldn&#39;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&#39;t lightning already do better on both accounts?=
=C2=A0<pre style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre></div><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at =
6:00 PM Paul Sztorc &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">truthcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20=
4,204);padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div>
    <div>
      <pre>On 3/1/2022 12:39 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote:</pre>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
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.</span></blockquote></span></p=
re>
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>
          <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">It sounds like what you=
&#39;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?</span></pre>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <pre>Yes, precisely.</pre>
    <pre></pre>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>
          <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">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?</span></pre>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <pre>For some reason, this is a very popular question. I suppose if you=
 believe in &quot;one size fits all&quot; chain philosophy (see comment bel=
ow), it makes sense to say &quot;these sidechains are terrible&quot; on Mon=
day and then &quot;these sidechains are so good they will replace the mainc=
hain&quot; 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&#39;t tell.

If you run the Bip300 DriveNet demo software (<a href=3D"http://drivechain.=
info/releases" target=3D"_blank">drivechain.info/releases</a>), 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.)


</pre>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div>
          <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">&gt; </span><span style=
=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">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.</span></pre>
        </div>
        <div>
          <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">&gt; </span><span style=
=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">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&#39;t see why the tears shed would be any different=
.</span></pre>
        </div>
        <div>
          <pre><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap">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&#39;t advocate for ideas we think aren&#39;t good. You were =
advocating for a &quot;largeblock sidechain&quot;, 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&#39;t be advocating for that. But certainly if so=
meone *does* think so and has their own reasons, I wouldn&#39;t want to cen=
sor or stop them. But I wouldn&#39;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. </span></pre>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <pre>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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;btc&#39; transactions (the same as we don&#39;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 &quot;custodial LN&quot;. And certainl=
y superior to nothing.

Paul

* <a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DV3cvH2eWqfU" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DV3cvH2eWqfU</a>
</pre>
  </div>

</blockquote></div>

--000000000000e14fed05d963c01e--