Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:17:24 +0100
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Message-ID: <20150616181724.GA4055@muck>
References: <CAL8tG==LG=xC_DzOaghbGGKab4=UVpGLQV7781pU4wg+WnFdMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjqQ66f1Rmhi9HOBYP5BDjBHvTNPpUN-y3o-KX8dXBMhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<557D2571.601@gmail.com>
	<CAL8tG=kEv9AfQM+1Rv+tqBujFEjCp+BsjQ-1s7eJC-usogFFqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjrSed4r+8-d2RGBVhbzaXxX+o=qqw2u-2jpF2RUqmEmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0OJg2hC4Ab4Yxy3ekH4WXD9hqHore8+sbF9r1r2SwT_zg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OJg2hC4Ab4Yxy3ekH4WXD9hqHore8+sbF9r1r2SwT_zg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains
Precedence: list


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

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:15:14PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > It's simple: either you care about validation, and you must validate
> > everything, or you don't, and you don't validate anything. Sidechains do
> > not offer you a useful compromise here, as well as adding huge delays a=
nd
> > conplexity.
> >
>=20
> As noted to Adam last night - although I agree it adds complexity - side
> chains are one solution that will indeed help with scaling long term.
> Similar to the graph you see with git repos and merges, having aggregation
> chains that arbitrarily fork and then rejoin the main chain are both
> feasible and useful.
>=20
> That code & future is a ways away from production, so doesn't help us
> here.  Still, let's not dismiss it as a solution either.

To be clear, it depends on what kind of sidechain.

My off-chain transaction notions are federated sidechains with an
economic incentive to not commit fraud using fidelity bonds; they were
definitely proposed as a scaling solution.

Merge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a
scaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for
miners.

Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the
tree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a
scaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid
design yet that's ready for production. (my treechains don't qualify for
transactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)

Keep in mind that other than preserving mining
decentralization/resisting censorship, we've known how to scale up
blockchains for ages w/ things like (U)TXO commitments and fraud proofs.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=99Pg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH--