1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
|
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B75C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C9060675
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
NICE_REPLY_A=-0.117, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id QG4-LQLjH1RS
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE2E60D88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id t21so7325269qkg.6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:content-language:to:cc
:references:from:subject:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=TCiS4lUmmzCpYmcdKh561hFATWZZ6TU7+uuSMLzHl7Y=;
b=RRUKGPPtc2TlMb8RhJCCIiuo0VzexkQSz3emIoeMtSMIwXA3SQm5EF6TmOakqoQT6J
txcBTiajsfaFZOFy0gi9xUSmKMOaD4CUkBCjxF15RZwusHXOLmyXBKNiF5Z2i63GhndD
fSb0SSZPUHxXM934ZjOpnpdkfEiY1ZlbDNiUq1ZQNuke3yN5UxkFSEIr4giAoN7QPbkE
73xkUaKTWtm7870YjAmgiw8lbl+SeLnBJ+e8tqv0gQiDzB2XP1/XhwV/BIAABFQ9Nazg
XnUcaxqXr/NlcFRXOsUjJuYBS3DT/8h4Wlx0x7LKRTggjx4Nm79IxqCrEbNNq+gGXsFJ
JAAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent
:content-language:to:cc:references:from:subject:in-reply-to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=TCiS4lUmmzCpYmcdKh561hFATWZZ6TU7+uuSMLzHl7Y=;
b=LYYyV+DAXQZLREgvTxXoWZoJNP2ciNHSzliR/4iOqEeBeY82hkkJY/KSjZKgFP2iYl
Jex61ryp4lPQdrPh1Z7aJqYQ6lPOq5DXFUrVZqXR6gjymQ2SkxDGR1XGtfb9PFqdtAQe
1qLUZI0k4pWG5cvyFFSelUST2ti6/dCy4JapDQnCppnVSRvefDTCxICFDrc0ruiiq3bh
YtJQBxLaGQdEETRKQ/x/x+NyNBFy8KGcArZAKonZkP5UsAFr1DBompmQwC4tGW3PH6DX
s2cVosN4SGUwShrZqthff7Z10jL3zQBENNmR1zZ9X3XouK7t5VvL49qcbR9B3FeF3XIt
3NUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530X0p6YgfAvUBZnA0M8k7q6/4ifymZxk1Qm4wg6iJ/WYVq4Cjei
HC9YmsxNsycutp+/pqj90RgWC+rElFw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTWAcVkCGMQa1rMpFy1rjo1DwonbHW5ds5MK1O1B3Gba8pRsP7uWPyQb4sxhTqPVXYK7pKWA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:889:b0:60a:50bf:1ed4 with SMTP id
b9-20020a05620a088900b0060a50bf1ed4mr206005qka.55.1646424412735;
Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.165] (ool-45714b6d.dyn.optonline.net.
[69.113.75.109]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
v13-20020ac8578d000000b002de94b94741sm4145041qta.22.2022.03.04.12.06.51
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1b6c8b2b-63ff-8cd5-076f-6e15da678a36@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:06:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoK=pkZuovtifBzdqhoyegzG+9hRTFEc7fG9nZPDK4KbU3w@mail.gmail.com>
<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>
<CAGpPWDak4=ter4UT6VHbAWyA4ckkHc6zORsX4JZ3nF6qz0tb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDak4=ter4UT6VHbAWyA4ckkHc6zORsX4JZ3nF6qz0tb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:06:54 -0000
On 3/4/2022 7:35 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote:
>> sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain ...
>
> 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).
It is hard to see how this "sidechain cuts off the mainchain" scenario
could plausibly be in enough people's interest:
* Miners would lose the block subsidy (ie, the 6.25 BTC, or whatever of
it that still remains), and txn fees from the mainchain and all other
merged mined chains.
* Developers would lose the ability to create a dissenting new piece of
software (and would instead be forced into a permanent USSR-style "one
party system" intellectual monoculture).
* Users would lose --permanently-- the ability to take their coins to
new blockchains, removing almost all of their leverage.
Furthermore, because sidechains cannot exist without their parent (but
not vice-versa), we can expect a large permanent interest in keeping
mainchain node costs low. Aka: very small mainchain blocks forever. So,
the shut-it-down mainchain-haters, would have to meet the question "why
not just leave things the way they are?". And the cheaper the
mainchain-nodes are, the harder that question is to answer.
However, if a sidechain really were so overwhelmingly popular as to
clear all of these hurdles, then I would first want to understand why it
is so popular. Maybe it is a good thing and we should cheer it on.
> 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?
Yes, that's true. There are very many tradeoffs in general:
1. Onboarding
2. Route Capacity / Payment Limits
3. Failed Payments
4. Speed of Payment
5. Receive while offline / need for interaction/monitoring/watchtowers
6. Micropayments
7. Types of fees charged, and for what
8. Contribution to layer1 security budget
9. Auditability (re: large organizations) / general complexity
LN is certainly better for 4 and 6. But everything else is probably up
for grabs. And this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. I just
made it up now.
(And, if the layer2 is harmless, then its existence can be justified via
one single net benefit, for some users, somewhere on the tradeoff-list.)
Paul
|
