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: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8628CC0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660CB41E0D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 660CB41E0D
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=GC0bbOyN
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8hoihOX76mvu
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:17:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-4327.protonmail.ch (mail-4327.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.27])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D0B41E03
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:17:00 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 09D0B41E03
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:16:25 +0000
Authentication-Results: mail-4321.protonmail.ch;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.b="GC0bbOyN"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1693441008; x=1693700208;
bh=Ph00jjbByPsW/H2QNNvWAJ3qoUgwqEXoHYpoJZlPFuM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=GC0bbOyNm1GPKKG6aL2iDytu9Ab2IUakktcvcBnXBKBkZ5ogxpVhO3B5u2lmQ38aF
E5cKIc4JMOel6iTQ19e5r2vW/CxxkYxcUHG9F6JRAZkFV7OhtP7GeIU5wRshaKqBla
z2ORzftVS9+nNjJKcP671wPMR/MAZ2eF/Q+8qSFA7/PDmX3E0zez2jGA3x00JP0iMQ
6FywlGwboGrGn8GnOKfoXDk03j7ZxTMDJUghdGreya1qZ4cCEHdMnHK5bdy9KQJtLv
aJCuWX3d9hGrxc68m6Ybde5MKMy/tyyVvxAD8c+EsRTeYElwiOO3r6Rg4AyN0rUjbS
s+JGgGph2RT4Q==
To: ryan@breen.xyz
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <1vNs5QDY6fY_t7bjbY_4gSaYHv0xxDuSkN3eFbW_qM8Q_1-Iwcf3u2AkG7JTQQ__9RxbnhDAI0A5TisV6e1pv_i4hDcj9AVKJZSnLxWu66E=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E9WH5C46HJT_uwLTnliTeZSZPrPwoKQs57muUxPVzaGWCWWriC4m2HGVoagR8dfvRBU_1qGtvlhojqIf_854em3_bJIR6DzAqAGHR6fW_nI=@protonmail.com>
References: <E4A37B75-349D-4CD8-B8E2-9686EFDA9EEA@breen.xyz>
<CAPv7TjZf4nLpCZPDOWK=vJGQuH0waTXkM6h40tc7G+YKAOGOGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2BFA7EE8-2E0E-45A3-AC11-8E57F99EC775@breen.xyz>
<2FylpMx7IsZBt3ILxEt9pVB0Kq03jZqTUeLnB2hWT5j8qiB4o6plW3gjhBXQ_7p4MwQ_npQUpZ64hQaR6UnLhMNCnk_jCv1XObmrJbjrVqg=@protonmail.com>
<0D44C322-E2B4-4F80-A5D8-7D8304BDAE1A@breen.xyz>
<E9WH5C46HJT_uwLTnliTeZSZPrPwoKQs57muUxPVzaGWCWWriC4m2HGVoagR8dfvRBU_1qGtvlhojqIf_854em3_bJIR6DzAqAGHR6fW_nI=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sentinel Chains: A Novel Two-Way Peg
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:17:02 -0000
Good morning Ryan, et al.,
My long-ago interest in sidechains was the hope that they would be a scalin=
g solution.
However, at some point I thought "the problem is that blockchains cannot sc=
ale, sidechains means MORE blockchains that cannot scale, what was I thinki=
ng???"
This is why I turned my attention to Lightning, which is a non-blockchain m=
echanism for scaling blockchains.
The only other reason for sidechains is to develop new features.
However, any actually useful features should at some point get onto the "re=
al" Bitcoin.
In that case, a sidechain would "only" be useful as a proof-of-concept.
And in that case, a federated sidechain among people who can slap the back =
of the heads of each other in case of bad behavior would be sufficient to d=
evelop and prototype a feature.
--
In any case, if you want to consider a "user-activated" sidechain feature, =
you may be interested in an old idea, "mainstake", by some obscure random w=
ith an unpronouncable name: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/sidechain/mainstake/=
index.html
Here are some differences compared to e.g. drivechains:
* Mainchain miners cannot select the builder of the next sidechain block, w=
ithout increasing their required work (possibly dropping them below profita=
bility).
More specifically:
* If they want to select a minority (< 50%) sidechain block builder, then=
their difficulty increases by at least one additional bit.
The number of bits added is basically the negative log2 of the share of=
the sidechain block builder they want to select.
* The intent is to make it very much more unpalatable for a sidechain blo=
ck builder to pay fees to the mainchain miner to get its version of the sid=
echain block confirmed.
A minority sidechain block builder that wants to lie to the mainchain a=
bout a withdrawal will find that the fees necessary to convince a miner to =
select them are much higher than the total fees of a block.
This better isolates sidechain conflicts away from mainchain miners.
* Miners can censor the addition of new mainstakes or the renewal of existi=
ng mainstakes.
However, the same argument of censorship-resistance should still apply he=
re (< 51% cannot reliably censor, and >=3D51% *can* censor but that creates=
an increasing feerate for censored transactions that encourages other pote=
ntial miners to evict the censor).
* In particular, miners cannot censor sidechain blocks easily (part of th=
e isolation above), though they *can* censor new mainstakers that are attem=
pting to evict mainstakers that are hostile to a sidechain.
There are still some similarities.
Essentially, all sidechain funds are custodied by a set of anonymous people=
.
One can consider as well that fund distribution is unlikely to be well-dist=
ributed, and thus it is possible that a small number of very large whales c=
an simply take over some sidechain with small mainstakers and outright stea=
l the funds in it, making them even richer.
(Consider how the linked write-up mentions "PoW change" much, much too ofte=
n, I am embarassed for this foolish pseudonymous writer)
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
