Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7089C1C for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com (mail-it0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 837213FB for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x28so15604795ita.0 for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:36:32 -0800 (PST) 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=j2bO22xT0ebADqEFjOXnSTFYKEeet4D+6f3A8S6UCpY=; b=tI+frFlY41Rec+JnCfNlzMLAcgkp5uHwgEOtL0LgSJBkGnsZPPOjKjMNbECLEk2CDV OX/bjzvRnq+0+zdoMa43+J2j1xhmORcViN6JDK7coGE4/zwQYI2LBiU7oopnyxExAtU1 d/e91pY3rniUCGBQD/eMGffS+aZVqvQLAi2kZY9CO7rhDJA7Q8R2smrk/clF8EYR7Jf3 ZseIW/NkdS+JedXoBarej1YwHHoTszwukxcmQpIM9Xuvpos3AQb6TcwDN1LX+yIT0IB/ pW9ziFhJ/9opKfTEczHt/JHDMOwqBC+6YWRb9y1pbAbghJMFCeCzq68htepVlNzGWgpY im+w== 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=j2bO22xT0ebADqEFjOXnSTFYKEeet4D+6f3A8S6UCpY=; b=elKg77sj4hzvdQtot36zMGwCryeiXll+E+JYhIqBbrFqyq3jvzIPS2OqaPczfq8m6a /1bHaONoIy2QkOmBTBk49Bb9Xg4dPsGXJ25OtgYE9UsfYHhdrphRlKO1PqrmSiTyy1j7 u6BNV23JnwSPGZR2wcWXYwdLK6KOfMZKNY+kqzCfD0IyW8H1QMOcHVf1oRKBCiYwbZNu KPhnyfC3ngHF9Ha53boQZ8XK3sT+tiJW2BVCrzmp018Kjbu6w8nwhtLGyg8cXXuzeZa4 z7bCFvC8HiHVPMPL7YI6XjZL2ZkalJ733mLspo2M6K5u2UDfl01rYFFoXzFLwSYziSfG Wzuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5FrXd1YiCZrZCQwtsqKQFJpp1qKv4X6C5Lzwd8FpKRehAaq20e X3Nnzrif7U52OEEW56kqZDS87yvFykIeQ5rQe1k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ4Hc5LGCuaJAaXQo50v6HCHT/FnyDq2q/CWjqkWBsFtL+ElQ4IGlQmRPkGKBFcnLy/mAyvdOwjpxZeOxE6nCQ= X-Received: by 10.36.36.213 with SMTP id f204mr14549772ita.89.1512416191827; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:36:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.214.138 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.214.138 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:36:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1bb6cccd-3f6d-d62a-2825-4e6f46a4b525@mattcorallo.com> From: Chris Pacia Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:36:31 -0500 Message-ID: To: Paul Sztorc , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147bce6ddd50f055f88d592" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Two Drivechain BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 19:36:32 -0000 --001a1147bce6ddd50f055f88d592 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I think you are missing a few things. First of all, I think the security model for sidechains is the same as that of every blockchain People will say things, like "but with sidechains 51% hashrate can steal your coins!", but as I have repeated many times, this is also true of mainchain btc-tx. is something else? There are substantial opportunity costs as well as a collective action problem when it comes to re-writing the mainchain. Is there anything similar for drivechains? As far as I can tell there is no opportunity cost to casting a malicious vote, no repercussions, and no collective action barrier that needs to be overcome. Unless I'm missing something I wouldn't liken the security of a drivechain to that of the mainchain. --001a1147bce6ddd50f055f88d592 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think you are m= issing a few things.

First of all, I think the security model for sidechains is the same as
that of every blockchain

People will say things, like "but with sidechains 51% hashrate can ste= al
your coins!", but as I have repeated many times, this is also true of<= br> mainchain btc-tx. =C2=A0is something else?

There are substantial oppor= tunity costs as well as a collective action problem when it comes to re-wri= ting the mainchain.=C2=A0

Is there anything similar for drivechains? As far as I can tell there is = no opportunity cost to casting a malicious vote, no repercussions, and no c= ollective action barrier that needs to be overcome.=C2=A0

Unless I'm missing something I wouldn= 't liken the security of a drivechain to that of the mainchain.
--001a1147bce6ddd50f055f88d592--