📅 Original date posted:2017-05-22
📝 Original message:Dear list,
I've been working on "drivechain", a sidechain enabling technology, for
some time.
* The technical info site is here: www.drivechain.info
* The changes to Bitcoin are here:
https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/mainchainBMM
* A Blank sidechain template is here:
https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/sidechainBMM
As many of you know, I've been seeking feedback in person, at various
conferences and meetups over the past year, most prominently Scaling
Milan. And I intend to continue to seek feedback at Consensus2017 this
week, so if you are in NYC please just walk up and start talking to me!
But I also wanted to ask the list for feedback. Initially, I was
hesitant because I try not to consume reviewers' scarce time until the
author has put in a serious effort. However, I may have waiting too
long, as today it is actually quite close to a working release.
Scaling Implications
---------------------
This upgrade would have significant scaling implications. Since it is
the case that sidechains can be added by soft fork, and since each of
these chains will have its own blockspace, this theoretically removes
the blocksize limit from "the Bitcoin system" (if one includes
sidechains as part of such a system). People who want a LargeBlock
bitcoin can just move their BTC over to such a network [1], and their
txns will have no longer have an impact on "Bitcoin Core". Thus, even
though this upgrade does not actually increase "scalability" per se, it
may in fact put an end to the scalability debate...forever.
This work includes the relatively new concept of "Blind Merged Mining"
[2] which I developed in January to allow SHA256^2 miners to merge-mine
these "drivechains", even if these miners aren't running the actual
sidechain software. The goal is to prevent sidechains from affecting the
levelness of the mining "playing field". BMM is conceptually similar to
ZooKeeV [3] which Peter Todd sketched out in mid-2013. BMM is not
required for drivechain, but it would address some of the last remaining
concerns.
Total Transaction Fees in the Far Future
-----------------------------------------
Some people feel that a maximum blocksize limit is needed to ensure that
future total equilibrium transaction fees are non-negligible. I
presented [4] on why I don't agree, 8 months ago. The reviewers I spoke
to over the last year have stopped bringing this complaint up, but I am
not sure everyone feels that way.
Juxtaposition with a recent "Scaling Compromise"
-------------------------------------------------
Recently, a scalability proposal began to circulate on social media. As
far as I could tell, it goes something like "immediately activate
SegWit, and then HF to double the nonwitness blockspace to 2MB within 12
months". But such a proposal is quite meager, compared to a "LargeBlock
Drivechain". The drivechain is better on both fronts, as it would not
require a hardfork, and could *almost immediately* add _any_ amount of
extra blockspace (specifically, I might expect a BIP101-like LargeBlock
chain that has an 8 MB maxblocksize, which doubles every two years).
In other words, I don't know why anyone would support that proposal over
mine. The only reasons would be either ignorance (ie, unfamiliarity with
drivechain) or because there are still nagging unspoken complaints about
drivechain which I apparently need to hear and address.
Other Thoughts
---------------
Unfortunately, anyone who worked on the "first generation" of sidechain
technology (the skiplist) or the "second generation" (federated /
Liquid), will find that this is very different.
I will admit that I am very pessimistic about any conversation that
involves scalability. It is often said that "talking politics lowers
your IQ by 25 points". Bitcoin scalability conversations seem to drain
50 points. (Instead of conversing, I think people should quietly work on
whatever they are passionate about until their problem either is solved,
or it goes away for some other reason, or until we all agree to just
stop talking about it.)
Cheers,
Paul
[1] http://www.drivechain.info/faq/#can-sidechains-really-help-with-scaling
[2] http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blind-merged-mining/
[3] https://s3.amazonaws.com/peter.todd/bitcoin-wizards-13-10-17.log
[4]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YErLEuOi3xU&list=PLw8-6ARlyVciNjgS_NFhAu-qt7HPf_dtg&index=4
Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] /
npub10t…w9uu9
2023-06-07 18:01:26
in reply to nevent1q…c7mg
Author Public Key
npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9Published at
2023-06-07 18:01:26Event JSON
{
"id": "03ab3e71a680f5839871156a5d5c58b23f4eecfa3a91f1fc0dd50e336280d2d6",
"pubkey": "7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be",
"created_at": 1686160886,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"13aad30f7ecbcd37c38d151da19b0bb97f1dbccd9f86dce3131cc3b52530ea2a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-22\n📝 Original message:Dear list,\n\nI've been working on \"drivechain\", a sidechain enabling technology, for\nsome time.\n\n* The technical info site is here: www.drivechain.info\n* The changes to Bitcoin are here:\nhttps://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/mainchainBMM\n* A Blank sidechain template is here:\nhttps://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/sidechainBMM\n\nAs many of you know, I've been seeking feedback in person, at various\nconferences and meetups over the past year, most prominently Scaling\nMilan. And I intend to continue to seek feedback at Consensus2017 this\nweek, so if you are in NYC please just walk up and start talking to me!\n\nBut I also wanted to ask the list for feedback. Initially, I was\nhesitant because I try not to consume reviewers' scarce time until the\nauthor has put in a serious effort. However, I may have waiting too\nlong, as today it is actually quite close to a working release.\n\n\nScaling Implications\n---------------------\n\nThis upgrade would have significant scaling implications. Since it is\nthe case that sidechains can be added by soft fork, and since each of\nthese chains will have its own blockspace, this theoretically removes\nthe blocksize limit from \"the Bitcoin system\" (if one includes\nsidechains as part of such a system). People who want a LargeBlock\nbitcoin can just move their BTC over to such a network [1], and their\ntxns will have no longer have an impact on \"Bitcoin Core\". Thus, even\nthough this upgrade does not actually increase \"scalability\" per se, it\nmay in fact put an end to the scalability debate...forever.\n\nThis work includes the relatively new concept of \"Blind Merged Mining\"\n[2] which I developed in January to allow SHA256^2 miners to merge-mine\nthese \"drivechains\", even if these miners aren't running the actual\nsidechain software. The goal is to prevent sidechains from affecting the\nlevelness of the mining \"playing field\". BMM is conceptually similar to\nZooKeeV [3] which Peter Todd sketched out in mid-2013. BMM is not\nrequired for drivechain, but it would address some of the last remaining\nconcerns.\n\n\nTotal Transaction Fees in the Far Future\n-----------------------------------------\n\nSome people feel that a maximum blocksize limit is needed to ensure that\nfuture total equilibrium transaction fees are non-negligible. I\npresented [4] on why I don't agree, 8 months ago. The reviewers I spoke\nto over the last year have stopped bringing this complaint up, but I am\nnot sure everyone feels that way.\n\n\nJuxtaposition with a recent \"Scaling Compromise\"\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nRecently, a scalability proposal began to circulate on social media. As\nfar as I could tell, it goes something like \"immediately activate\nSegWit, and then HF to double the nonwitness blockspace to 2MB within 12\nmonths\". But such a proposal is quite meager, compared to a \"LargeBlock\nDrivechain\". The drivechain is better on both fronts, as it would not\nrequire a hardfork, and could *almost immediately* add _any_ amount of\nextra blockspace (specifically, I might expect a BIP101-like LargeBlock\nchain that has an 8 MB maxblocksize, which doubles every two years).\n\nIn other words, I don't know why anyone would support that proposal over\nmine. The only reasons would be either ignorance (ie, unfamiliarity with\ndrivechain) or because there are still nagging unspoken complaints about\ndrivechain which I apparently need to hear and address.\n\n\nOther Thoughts\n---------------\n\nUnfortunately, anyone who worked on the \"first generation\" of sidechain\ntechnology (the skiplist) or the \"second generation\" (federated /\nLiquid), will find that this is very different.\n\nI will admit that I am very pessimistic about any conversation that\ninvolves scalability. It is often said that \"talking politics lowers\nyour IQ by 25 points\". Bitcoin scalability conversations seem to drain\n50 points. (Instead of conversing, I think people should quietly work on\nwhatever they are passionate about until their problem either is solved,\nor it goes away for some other reason, or until we all agree to just\nstop talking about it.)\n\nCheers,\nPaul\n\n[1] http://www.drivechain.info/faq/#can-sidechains-really-help-with-scaling\n[2] http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blind-merged-mining/\n[3] https://s3.amazonaws.com/peter.todd/bitcoin-wizards-13-10-17.log\n[4]\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YErLEuOi3xU\u0026list=PLw8-6ARlyVciNjgS_NFhAu-qt7HPf_dtg\u0026index=4",
"sig": "36ae451e61be4e49fb552346bee39e17ca9e8160d102cc1892fed23d672ccdb283ef57a8fdb2d1519a0fd412435fe621f186dc6327f7d7589f2bad5bb51a13eb"
}