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
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC938BAC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:01:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com
[209.85.215.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B23717C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:01:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z78so1699740lff.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:13 -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=3Teb0Knb9ch8/3vKzJzb9U5CBcjlApAAS/cqdCwT8Qc=;
b=h6Amz6arLY3SI0AfAozFOgnEU69lsv6JnUhd89VS3CFga3+0iwOMCuZCRUgZpTKDsc
lsoiQBsl+vJA9Vfnn5VV/AURbcUtwZwSRrCNjCusGEWORmo9RRIYv9FIC7tZhViH4wB5
GKosRUk9ykITScXCUr16tWoDhNU/xtNnE474n3jmQx9bMAuXlsT2VexJmgMlAEHYTiSi
9z2OdsjWHnTPyAf6hYYIqumoPRnCD9HEtBE8QaXBwbzXQqfjChVAEYbWpJT6cWAUZLE/
N/baoUSJjhvbjBFozXtPIy/VwNak/jQHdpJ11iEIq8mw0U4c1SiKiEYQzsgflau56Sa+
GhqA==
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=3Teb0Knb9ch8/3vKzJzb9U5CBcjlApAAS/cqdCwT8Qc=;
b=Zpf04BuCgyyf9tTsN2pSbbOlb4kXWs31UppUj0d/yVFIezfiBu5u7zhOpdoBEfg5yR
i0w/ozVzu2PYargF6s9i2AI0T1Q0OWdqQCSGFRqy9Gn0IDXgKNPtwiyIN22VL2WeelUX
g/fc/hiSg++sZAzK7VRWPYP0BizbMOf0dgvIcw60dzJWdX28+c1cvKUVAtz9s28p/Pk7
XHmQhKHTlq2tZ+LzUGU2/l10VXk0liRHCvMTjwdReNb8hNv1J05y3EfyWp7oiLPoPtAE
vI0RdKQPl7Mxnr7bQTUi6xTLXYbKIiKq58uSMO9UTZUJE6aVlECOas5gFAxyj6c0tOYU
yHFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110veqdrJz5gqRXbS4E0JLzjusSfapOEKMaifrIvfkJtY5DAwPke
MvBwhiwSdGylaImhD1bdtriPyzP72Q==
X-Received: by 10.80.181.80 with SMTP id z16mr3700336edd.6.1499803271632; Tue,
11 Jul 2017 13:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.222.141 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:01:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Stewart <chris@suredbits.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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, 11 Jul 2017 21:09:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap
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, 11 Jul 2017 20:01:14 -0000
--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" <
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
--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via b=
itcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>> wro=
te:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-8083649854125578197m_-8=
689624958029859536quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Concept ACK.<br><br><=
/div>If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scal=
e</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto">I strongly disagree with that statement.</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"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=3D"auto">While obviou=
sly any future with wider adoption will need different technologies that ha=
ve different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose their security model,=
I don't think this particular one is interesting. In terms of validati=
on cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity increase on chain, whi=
le simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners being able to vote to ste=
al your money.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div>Cheers,<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br><br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bloc=
kquote class=3D"m_-8083649854125578197m_-8689624958029859536quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D=
"ltr"><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div>
--94eb2c0e47663d1d7305541029f2--
|
