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
191
192
193
194
|
Return-Path: <lvella@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5C82C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 04:46:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot0-f180.google.com (mail-ot0-f180.google.com
[74.125.82.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31DB87
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 04:46:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r67so104233782ota.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=BqxzcANI8dgilG+qod+Xu9RModjWUqbiUH3xM+qvYq4=;
b=WxHfKnv8wY/+XITLuBsRqMmAb3SbFHtGNpscR2G5Zh2kBXyt+tBC7Exn20FLVk0k9r
9rQkjCSfEVEiow4V5MGDBAR6bTRI2tWq6birUX3NfQRr32DEq5RJ3MQHQMFtwVWkEwDV
S+WmnKTyOIl04T/1uI/xYw5ZA9Sik9U1mBlL0Pv7u6SD8BaxM5ZOk6YQ4QEPyLH/w4UH
ohvzIY/2YxnqMRuiVJRwJzzSb8DTXkYeT3/XbbkPY13qodmPwDzmCdAEJpsjA1E47Bmc
xkWyZNpH0tGyK8BbF8h++xV4LvYNz8o0sTkuWueUZ28Q6chb18udaRTe8EirIvtI0q8U
pALA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=BqxzcANI8dgilG+qod+Xu9RModjWUqbiUH3xM+qvYq4=;
b=PWeQYZvF1bj0wQ2d0o7YCpqEKClL3NWIeu+lKYcp1XHomBncPSakuLhFfQGSXbEpYW
j9fA/U3IMOEr1s0sr2yyBbPc63s5VTgtToygHu8jW1LZXBVvZjYvopoWjN73D7k/1jlD
TbjsJyOb//AtJ52E6LNeyb3N1esg5gpQn7NtTulHrq+vvmtYGivlIVQMtIlKNn/Gibmu
bqQHHNSuYfzor3w5RrjuHFvoyprnBMEuAmjmvXxldP85xmPZwVgFn+REu+R4/aeDu7Ts
7nNjzJIOckqUdzmfo/Cxhrt3TQAHAm8wdO1Q/9GUyFLsZnT9nEf15cWax1Drsh4J98m5
M48w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzrse3RdUMg1n/HiuLz9tFLARUc57FOLM2ZmLubd5VswceSK3B6
9MgIOZQqdlpOfhfWainE1KBZjFAtMw==
X-Received: by 10.157.39.201 with SMTP id c67mr6212805otb.219.1498020396043;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.66.10 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:46:15 -0300
Message-ID: <CAGCathyHbNpepDZU-EHzmvGW_yM=+B3K6hHDDJ-LbDQ4T3vCyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0328b89293fa0552710d66"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AC_DIV_BONANZA,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:41:39 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Freeze Bitcoin protocol and call it Bitcoin 1
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 04:46:37 -0000
--94eb2c0328b89293fa0552710d66
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Is it too late to propose to freeze Bitcoin protocol as it is today (no
SegWit, no bigger block)?
Hear me out: assume Bitcoin is frozen as it is now: no more forks, no more
change in consensus rules. Call it Bitcoin 1 (BC1). So, how to evolve and
scale Bitcoin?
Use a very conservative sidechain, call it Bitcoin 2 (BC2), tightly
coupled, block per block, with Bitcoin 1 chain. No fancy experimental
changes there: fix the bare minimum to support more general two-way
sidechains, linear scalability transaction verification time and
transaction malleability. Can be one way only if that makes it simple
enough: coins sent to BC2 can never come back to BC1.
Miners choose to mine a BC2 block alongside a BC1 block, and it can be done
for free once a BC1 block is found. There may be BC1 blocks in the chain
whose corresponding BC2 blocks are missing (and that is not a big deal),
but there will be an economic incentive to mine a BC2 block, since
transaction fees on that chain will be collected.
The economic adoption is completely voluntary and independent of anyone
else, doesn't require the strong consensus of SegWit. If it is feasible to
create a simple enough two way sidechain over BC1, good. If not, economic
value of BC1 will always be at least that of BC2, but never lower. BC2 may
have a lower price than BC1 at first, but since it will have every feature
of BC1, plus the possibility of massive scalability and instantaneous
transactions with a lightning network built over BC2 (a practical
economical advantage), it will most likely value over what BC1 could ever
be alone, raising BC1 price with it.
If these predictions are correct, fewer and fewer people will transact BC1,
eventually with blocks mined empty except for the coinbase, which the miner
may choose to send directly to BC2. If I turn out to be wrong, and people
prefer to stick to the old BC1 for some reason, BC2 becomes just another
speculative altcoin. Thus, everyone migrating should be fully conscious
about the risk of immediate devaluation.
The 2 major risks I see that could hamper the adoption are:
- Just plain fear: I find the whole economical incentive scenario of BC2
sound and plausible, just as I found Bitcoin sound and plausible when I
heard about it for the first time. I also fear to put my money in BC2, just
as I did when I heard about Bitcoin. BC2 case is even worse, because I can
safely hold my coins in BC1 until I am sure BC2 is solid, so at first we
may experience only enthusiast adoption;
- Technological inertia: everyone wishing to accept BC2 will have to
implement this payment system as for any other altcoin. Every exchange
supporting both will have to create separated markets for BC1 and BC2.
Remember: both chains must be obviously distinguishable. It is even
desirable that the address format in BC2 to be incompatible with BC1 (maybe
staring with "2" ?).
Finally, due to the present state of affairs, with impending activation of
segwit with a promise to hardfork in 3 months, I believe this proposal is
too late, not to mention the stress, emotions and hard feelings of the
situation will make it go largely ill received or ignored. But since I
genuinely believe this to be the best and most conservative way to go with
Bitcoin, I wrote this anyway.
Please forgive me if something like this was discussed a thousand times
before and you wasted your time reading this.
--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail.com
--94eb2c0328b89293fa0552710d66
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Is it to=
o late to propose to freeze Bitcoin protocol as it is today (no SegWit, no =
bigger block)?<br><br></div>Hear me out: assume Bitcoin is frozen as it is =
now: no more forks, no more change in consensus rules. Call it Bitcoin 1 (B=
C1). So, how to evolve and scale Bitcoin?<br><br></div>Use a very conservat=
ive sidechain, call it Bitcoin 2 (BC2), tightly coupled, block per block, w=
ith Bitcoin 1 chain. No fancy experimental changes there: fix the bare mini=
mum to support more general two-way sidechains, linear scalability transact=
ion verification time and transaction malleability. Can be one way only if =
that makes it simple enough: coins sent to BC2 can never come back to BC1.<=
br><br></div>Miners choose to mine a BC2 block alongside a BC1 block, and i=
t can be done for free once a BC1 block is found. There may be BC1 blocks i=
n the chain whose corresponding BC2 blocks are missing (and that is not a b=
ig deal), but there will be an economic incentive to mine a BC2 block, sinc=
e transaction fees on that chain will be collected.<br><br></div>The econom=
ic adoption is completely voluntary and independent of anyone else, doesn&#=
39;t require the strong consensus of SegWit. If it is feasible to create a =
simple enough two way sidechain over BC1, good. If not, economic value of B=
C1 will always be at least that of BC2, but never lower. BC2 may have a low=
er price than BC1 at first, but since it will have every feature of BC1, pl=
us the possibility of massive scalability and instantaneous transactions wi=
th a lightning network built over BC2 (a practical economical advantage), i=
t will most likely value over what BC1 could ever be alone, raising BC1 pri=
ce with it.<br><br></div><div></div>If these predictions are correct, fewer=
and fewer people will transact BC1, eventually with blocks mined empty exc=
ept for the coinbase, which the miner may choose to send directly to BC2. I=
f I turn out to be wrong, and people prefer to stick to the old BC1 for som=
e reason, BC2 becomes just another speculative altcoin. Thus, everyone migr=
ating should be fully conscious about the risk of immediate devaluation.<br=
><br></div>The 2 major risks I see that could hamper the adoption are:<br><=
/div>=C2=A0- Just plain fear: I find the whole economical incentive scenari=
o of BC2 sound and plausible, just as I found Bitcoin sound and plausible w=
hen I heard about it for the first time. I also fear to put my money in BC2=
, just as I did when I heard about Bitcoin. BC2 case is even worse, because=
I can safely hold my coins in BC1 until I am sure BC2 is solid, so at firs=
t we may experience only enthusiast adoption;<br></div>- Technological iner=
tia: everyone wishing to accept BC2 will have to implement this payment sys=
tem as for any other altcoin. Every exchange supporting both will have to c=
reate separated markets for BC1 and BC2. Remember: both chains must be obvi=
ously distinguishable. It is even desirable that the address format in BC2 =
to be incompatible with BC1 (maybe staring with "2" ?).<br><br></=
div>Finally, due to the present state of affairs, with impending activation=
of segwit with a promise to hardfork in 3 months, I believe this proposal =
is too late, not to mention the stress, emotions and hard feelings of the s=
ituation will make it go largely ill received or ignored. But since I genui=
nely believe this to be the best and most conservative way to go with Bitco=
in, I wrote this anyway.<br><br></div>Please forgive me if something like t=
his was discussed a thousand times before and you wasted your time reading =
this.<br clear=3D"all"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><d=
iv><div><div><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gm=
ail_signature">Lucas Clemente Vella<br><a href=3D"mailto:lvella@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank">lvella@gmail.com</a></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></d=
iv></div>
--94eb2c0328b89293fa0552710d66--
|
