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
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
|
Return-Path: <psharp.x13@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC177A4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com (mail-yw0-f181.google.com
[209.85.161.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CE3E3D5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w22so6029014ywa.13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=KLtgQjfHaVXb/m+X/HVASh1e4TOhfV9acD8r7LGRRaY=;
b=Zg7e9AnCuc3j8nJikdHx0PdbAd1VXDddjQ+F+pN3TVWTODjom5bN589rJOE6eIkpPg
1or5rRvSA42VOuJdfUURrHQFqTFWl0pKbEBREEp4t3iMKoJH4xoYzyXLE0HSik6hcMUU
KmgqDVxf0P/teBZ7fzjpOEGivhruRw911R7u9NucwGYnP2SFRnGmsvAohetmTLC0UC4r
XZ9rHV4UcDkM7oRGClo34iLOn51DHMmbG1Zlf5sbase3c5VG4g16cF6RsHBDm1vQ5GaD
BljXlES28KbTgKV0dZVn8UBqNqYeflFmZylyfdeZcW+nv0mkjefR5HukEhfBqMc4u57t
ZloQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=KLtgQjfHaVXb/m+X/HVASh1e4TOhfV9acD8r7LGRRaY=;
b=I8pzIw1q/H5NwySclcaUgtXpwCmjw0nk1zUVhKLMSKzIdj0IEbjGtVDovEZ2+MvDpr
8VStlsSphnO49gvTfnUgaGTbc2zuZzpazgDx2i+EORa4Oemaqa6//bSYlP+nDqRxr6UX
sMGwnJZ/EWKjEWONOLurzNFY0I5Wflt5HviLXgGqHF8aHb8fDYU/2z1ufOm0mG1ABCgs
C0nmL2g8kXW7ChpuLAEPTLXpzmzxRuYa0wTL41vVWjmTm/We1yKSuPdIERyZdxTAJNHz
G+jdBBEFN98Ti0s2JIKfWKwag4YeX41bg+Vlpr3c3EEBC3xNEIY50h42QWSgOQkyH+St
R0Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUifylcQBEloAyGIN+5MnWtgbuAgL0wEfIKrPeEJ4KtrfAEZ0CBo
7VhquS7xjEXwTZJUiJ7UmbZNwaPVJB/gzDK3gho=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCqIqSKMg/a68sY4LQ7xX7nuoc3GJj4tp9gFQxeKez3CEM15RcEpYBVmOGjVTW07xIg2picvl6LPTX+rphseLk=
X-Received: by 10.129.212.65 with SMTP id g1mr1746287ywl.32.1506388510110;
Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.45.77 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7lMVV5tc0S5aSzZV8305yOhRd8AWufZhxToS31hmq6SGpiMC2eLZsvHYcsyj_HzFo6ip5p6CtKXRiHxxRVM3IHsCnm8qXWJT_iheDM3HYZU=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAES+R-q6v=Qc2zZgczNfKhrBtZ0kCt0Um90miAMGB0npp4zAKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAF5CFkheg5U0zPLSq9ow2aFZept8nGN94q894yRjiuvAY5s7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAES+R-pHkDHSPpTcyJyEv2rSWOvAkG+zUqs8hPwbHigejyFvDw@mail.gmail.com>
<7lMVV5tc0S5aSzZV8305yOhRd8AWufZhxToS31hmq6SGpiMC2eLZsvHYcsyj_HzFo6ip5p6CtKXRiHxxRVM3IHsCnm8qXWJT_iheDM3HYZU=@protonmail.com>
From: Patrick Sharp <psharp.x13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:15:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAES+R-of6zkZi0Wx191buWBvrTzmO8LjcfJ6dJ7-a9CtwQK+bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:05:46 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: bitcoin side chain implementation
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:15:12 -0000
--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
By magic I meant that that it happens all by itself without any extra
configuring.
Thank you for your responses. I have been enlightened. As ZmnSCPxj has
pointed out lightning network and pruning accomplishes everything I set out
to accomplish. And sharding is exactly what I had in mind. I will keep this
in the back of my mind and perhaps even attempt will implement it if it
still seems worth doing later.
You guys are totally awesome!!!
I here by withdraw my proposal for the time being.
-patrick
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning Patrick,
>
>
> >Non official chains suffer from the fact that few if any miners are going
> to mine them so they lack security on par with the main chain.
>
> That is why most sidechain proposals use some kind of merge mining, where
> a commitment to another chain's block is published on the Bitcoin chain.
> Drivechain has "blind" merge mining, my recent "mainstake" proposal
> publishses entire sidechain block headers on the mainchain. These
> techniques provide security that is nearer to mainchain security.
>
> >And more over most
> >users aren't going to use them because its not magic.
>
> No technology is magic, so I do not understand this sentence.
>
> >If my ultimate goal is official side chains that include part of the
> reward such security is at parity between all chains and that the official
> software
> >automatically enable users to distribute their burden, would my course of
> action be to build an external proof-of-concept side chain of side chains?
> >or do you doubt that official reward splitting chains will ever find
> their way into bitcoin core?
>
> I think it would be better to term your system as "sharding" rather than
> "sidechain".
>
> If and when we are able to actually agree upon some kind of
> sidechain-enabling proposal that is acceptable to the majority of Bitcoin
> Core developers, then yes, you should make a sidechain that is capable of
> sharding. Sharding a distributed ledger while ensuring correct operation
> is a hard problem; in particular it is almost impossible to protect against
> double-spending unless you can see all officially-added-to-the-chain
> transactions.
>
> See: https://petertodd.org/2015/why-scaling-bitcoin-with-
> sharding-is-very-hard
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">By magic I meant that that it happens all by itself withou=
t any extra configuring.<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your responses. I=
have been enlightened. As=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">ZmnSCPxj h=
as pointed out lightning network and pruning=C2=A0accomplishes everything I=
set out to accomplish. And sharding is exactly what I had in mind. I will =
keep this in the back of my mind and perhaps even attempt will implement it=
if it still seems worth doing later.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">You guy=
s are totally awesome!!!</span></div><div><br></div><div>I here by withdraw=
my proposal for the time being.</div><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px">-patrick</span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM, ZmnSCPxj <span d=
ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><div>Good morning Patrick,<br></div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><=
div><br></div><div>>Non official chains suffer from the fact that few if=
any miners are going to mine them so they lack security on par with the ma=
in chain.<br></div><div><br></div></span><div>That is why most sidechain pr=
oposals use some kind of merge mining, where a commitment to another chain&=
#39;s block is published on the Bitcoin chain.=C2=A0 Drivechain has "b=
lind" merge mining, my recent "mainstake" proposal publishse=
s entire sidechain block headers on the mainchain.=C2=A0 These techniques p=
rovide security that is nearer to mainchain security.<br></div><span class=
=3D""><div><br></div><div>>And more over most <br></div><div>>users a=
ren't going to use them because its not magic.<br></div><div><br></div>=
</span><div>No technology is magic, so I do not understand this sentence.<b=
r></div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><div>>If my ultimate goal is off=
icial side chains that include part of the reward such security is at parit=
y between all chains and that the official software <br></div><div>>auto=
matically enable users to distribute their burden, would my course of actio=
n be to build an external proof-of-concept side chain of side chains?<br></=
div><div>>or do you doubt that official reward splitting chains will eve=
r find their way into bitcoin core?<br></div><div><br></div></span><div>I t=
hink it would be better to term your system as "sharding" rather =
than "sidechain".<br></div><div><br></div><div>If and when we are=
able to actually agree upon some kind of sidechain-enabling proposal that =
is acceptable to the majority of Bitcoin Core developers, then yes, you sho=
uld make a sidechain that is capable of sharding.=C2=A0 Sharding a distribu=
ted ledger while ensuring correct operation is a hard problem; in particula=
r it is almost impossible to protect against double-spending unless you can=
see all officially-added-to-the-chain transactions.<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>See: <a href=3D"https://petertodd.org/2015/why-scaling-bitcoin-with-=
sharding-is-very-hard" target=3D"_blank">https://petertodd.org/2015/<wbr>wh=
y-scaling-bitcoin-with-<wbr>sharding-is-very-hard</a><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Regards,<br></div><div>ZmnSCPxj<br></div></blockquote></div><br></d=
iv>
--089e082242dc09f893055a0d68e8--
|
