From: Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Message-Id: <8BFBAD12-1ECC-4333-80CA-E62FC1FBF96B@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:26:38 -0500
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
 Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

> I think it's great that people want to experiment with things like
> drivechains/sidechains and what not, but their security model is very
> distinct from Bitcoin=E2=80=99s

Agree that experimentation is great and that it is usually the case that =
the security model differs.

Isn=E2=80=99t it also true also that the security model for SegWit is =
distinct from that defined for the Bitcoin token?

It does not appear to be a "chain of digital signatures" as per the =
original definition? I do understand that the hash state is still =
respected at block level. I=E2=80=99m referring more to the token=E2=80=99=
s chain.

Any clarification appreciated.

Thanks,

/sd=