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
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
|
Return-Path: <cryptaxe@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9258CACA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:22:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com (mail-pf0-f181.google.com
[209.85.192.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1B9914E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:22:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q85so2139176pfq.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-language;
bh=0vxWLdGEYfjXWvQU0FXL9EXWnnKuPsbVkCJZZkzkLiY=;
b=k3syhdeXaP3tctZOvzrZFcB5/G/2Fx83/CRe3bD/j5RIuIpKxbKuWcpL/T8t6HCW/K
ZlYl4aCE0HTfLY4vNcNCkJACljZeqXwGcDuBY7q1WDjk1YLbHjAyiR5/ZhoMWADPZwIk
KzaJMSiJ6Os6/UJxsW117i/NYgKA3bmeG7iBuqqgFz2Qw0xnQcj0YuZY2nUfkpcroWHu
LDwCsyfRGNuHGnH8bhrC6B1KR2V7Ksl26Uy8NHkLiIKjFR2ZdEbj+tnYY7L4GpblTVtR
DWrJucbr18npW34yurKqQ4UgDzxuFn2t63HpoRFqvIKwbDU/PM7ewxQIQVKMxpMSc4re
3dig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language;
bh=0vxWLdGEYfjXWvQU0FXL9EXWnnKuPsbVkCJZZkzkLiY=;
b=HO0H/VzJkNtRWXV/srXJ++GJs7fnS0Yeb1xwErsTYMK0sAQmWOcM1xQHThMBadqH7i
vSUx/eiCUSqJ5I+sv0VNjLT90w3Qj0EfpSoXQzJYi5DdSQ66VXMGTLQziExqvuDk78UE
qiqq3LL+oW3he4ZD4wQ6FDmNwfaj6WuqGzphCH0zcMKObQA4VEJAbH/oZB/jx0ERxQMY
Hjo4KcDQGs9AztnzfyaX6HoiuENWl82KfuEest5RV8+1mcpOny+IQCqpA/9X6AWNiUtx
CEn8grK7EHrc5DkgGKvmUw5TkqUhZCMT9K7fmpoN8abrWlsPtdmIcWEnHGaf8dkLTVen
W1ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111WtScuIabifTzFIQG24alDjZfmh4+LSeGAa5fra2Dgl7LBe3k5
+YkFn6sxcMl6bNovLTg=
X-Received: by 10.99.55.10 with SMTP id e10mr448902pga.176.1499808139938;
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (c-50-188-181-7.hsd1.or.comcast.net.
[50.188.181.7])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w20sm415187pgc.34.2017.07.11.14.22.18
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com>
<CAGL6+mHQZ3UP10msk65OO+Uk0hn7j+dkmJap_M7FgWfSZaYYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <78ce5fe7-f1bb-81c6-585c-c882d2d9b199@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:16:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861"
Content-Language: en-US
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 21:29:30 +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 21:22:21 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they opt-in to
another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not have to adopt
any of the changes made to a sidechain such as larger blocks for example.
On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev"
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they
opt-in to another scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not
have to adopt any of the changes made to a sidechain such as
larger blocks for example.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille
via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPg+sBghOOcyRqtuAXhWQ=yA1nuqw8Xs+yrK9CTpRo4uc3773Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris
Stewart via bitcoin-dev" <<a
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote
class="m_-8083649854125578197m_-8689624958029859536quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Concept ACK.<br>
<br>
</div>
If drivechains are successful they should be
viewed as the way we scale</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I strongly disagree with that statement.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="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="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,<br>
<br>
-- <br>
</div>
<div>Pieter<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------AC5BE6333E63978A6BF52861--
|
