To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
	<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <78ce5fe7-f1bb-81c6-585c-c882d2d9b199@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:16:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861"
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they opt-in to
another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not have to adopt
any of the changes made to a sidechain such as larger blocks for example.


On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they
      opt-in to another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not
      have to adopt any of the changes made to a sidechain such as
      larger blocks for example.<br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille
      via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="auto">
          <div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">
            <div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris
              Stewart via bitcoin-dev" &lt;<a
                href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;
              wrote:<br type="attribution">
              <blockquote
                class="m_-8083649854125578197m_-8689624958029859536quote"
                style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                solid;padding-left:1ex">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>Concept ACK.<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      If drivechains are successful they should be
                      viewed as the way we scale</div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="auto">I strongly disagree with that statement.</div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="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="auto">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.</div>
          <div dir="auto"><br>
          </div>
          <div>Cheers,<br>
            <br>
            -- <br>
          </div>
          <div>Pieter<br>
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861--