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
|
Return-Path: <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8D3F2B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:57:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com
[209.85.220.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29D13A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:57:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r184so15745275qkc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=1q22MNtC8KdUZsRMM/ebZaRKx0jjZk0E8SqZS2A6M0A=;
b=jWTQFFQ3Z/vhmy/LN/DnaHwtNNeqVWo2aaZUDdjZMIq7i8fuI2f+ZxEhSegf7RvCYX
tazb9FufsRkeSoRKl6F5PxNzGdb8GNs7x8j9+5+f6WZqR3qDLMA8rJbA4LRV0NI6Pymg
KsFBy9gCq/FmKh91OIO1VuzuVpTel1z+kGIaHKhehrmzncSuZePUgRz6iSA7s/TUajUC
HVCpHseTSBI6TRPRBfoUEVlI891Kfy7a4OqiPkT5a/hUxAi1sP/BUTzDJ9PoqymUnWAb
FLqDL/u59dx6amqndJpgOYCd1Tjwp1SLEAuC5/jKHxTcz5PkMBFgGYjxPJbmgTxM/nyE
7jRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=1q22MNtC8KdUZsRMM/ebZaRKx0jjZk0E8SqZS2A6M0A=;
b=eA8eLcdDBPZ8k9YVZEwRSUax75BUX0cItgOCdyTWXbOAAGJ1QdkYmmP82jT0aypX0a
3ouNvkMo8QlI4Q/Rnahjex1wGz29uHCUuuDhUV7dUy5DaDX3guw3roO1LygfFXRh81MU
846y7uff97zIKnJM2TCnr86bQb42OfGi/CvpIDKxZnIz/9d08UALrt5+bn1nz3yP0NR9
MleHXDuolZV7MSW2QUmRQqi38fpkpQZqXt++rFckEJmFUKjjLw7CcvtsCRx1GtN49Gz6
xH+VzP9QVLMKtUMRz0nOz+ieWwddbmP33ZCm1JOT1mTUabhymsF6EyMogr7NSXYk/ccq
dMJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVJ/IqK2xZgIb2CUaOpQSSKz3n9xYh7laIcctALVFTJoy1sOTOxiH+7GVU8qPUSeQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.11.4 with SMTP id 4mr12476187qkl.92.1461167821262;
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.105] (ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net.
[69.117.250.141]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
r130sm2174460qha.25.2016.04.20.08.57.00
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5717A6C9.1030702@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:56:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:06:15 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Sidechains pre-BIP Discussion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:57:03 -0000
Dear list,
This message concerns pegged "sidechains", namely the Two Way Peg [1].
Specifically, it is to introduce a new OP Code (perhaps called
"OP_CheckVotesVerify"). This OP code can be deployed by soft fork, and
has (as we all probably know) many benefits, including:
1. ("Optional hard forks") Sidechains allow 'opt in' adoption of new
features. As a result, Bitcoin (the bearer asset, not the software) will
never need to worry about competing with an alternate system. This
includes competitors such as Ripple or Ethereum (supposedly
"innovative"), as well as BitcoinXT and Bitcoin Classic (supposedly
"popular").
2. ("Staging Upgrades") SCs allow complex updates to Bitcoin to be
tested, in a realistic environment (where actual BTC are at risk, and
utilizing actual network mining resources). If these updates fail, they
can be revised; if they succeed, they can be incorporated into the
mainchain.
3. Directing "blockchain resources" to Bitcoin. This includes money,
developer talent, public attention, etc.
4. Less time spent debating controversial features. Instead, we return
to a culture of "permissionless innovation".
Again, as we all know, the concept has generally received high interest
and favorable appraisal.
--
However, this feature has highly complex effects on the Bitcoin
ecosystem, and so the details should command our full attention.
First, the deployment of this OP Code involves new block validation
rules ("Drivechain") which are described on my blog [2].
In addition to that post, I intend to release short presentations:
1. On the overall design justification.
2. On "Enforcing Limits on Shared Resources". This explores the
potential for SCs to have a detrimental effect on users of vanilla BTC,
and how this proposal confronts these problems.
3. On the governance of SCs-- aka the degree of 'coupling',
inter-relatedness, and/or hierarchy --- and how Drivechain's design acts
to maximize the total value of the "chain portfolio".
My purpose, in emailing today, is to begin the conversation. The scope
of the concept is simply too large, to draft a readable BIP without
knowing what the actual points of interest are. Please express your
reactions!
Thank you for reading,
Paul
P.S. In assessing the proposal, you may find a recent technical paper
[3] by Sergio Demian Lerner to be of interest.
--
[1]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-March/004724=
=2Ehtml
[2] http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/
[3] http://www.rootstock.io/#resources (
https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/27311e59-0832-49b5-ab0e-2b0a73899=
561/Drivechains_Sidechains_and_Hybrid_2-way_peg_Designs_R9.pdf
)
|
