ð
Original date posted:2017-07-11
ð Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170711/1de23cb2/attachment.html>;
CryptAxe [ARCHIVE] /
npub12pâŠjs309
2023-06-07 18:04:14
in reply to nevent1qâŠ7558
Author Public Key
npub12p7jzesdg8kxdg8rujr20znnd868fgugczkwh4cyxwa6gnxj5sxsnjs309Published at
2023-06-07 18:04:14Event JSON
{
"id": "bc29a5ae26b824eafd3eb57172f9246682808f7ed72b595413784d88aa69387f",
"pubkey": "507d21660d41ec66a0e3e486a78a7369f474a388c0acebd70433bba44cd2a40d",
"created_at": 1686161054,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0dbbb3b4fffe9287047e58a8fa04c4b6c95589f2269ea5553f7cb2691feb3b03",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fef361fbfedd7e64b650865ae3ea8d5952d0dc80057a1105d03dbd13c352d64d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be"
]
],
"content": "ð
Original date posted:2017-07-11\nð Original message:If users can opt-in to another security model, why can't they opt-in to\nanother scaling model? The mainchain (Bitcoin) does not have to adopt\nany of the changes made to a sidechain such as larger blocks for example.\n\n\nOn 07/11/2017 01:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, \"Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev\"\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Concept ACK.\n\u003e\n\u003e If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we\n\u003e scale\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I strongly disagree with that statement.\n\u003e\n\u003e Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a\n\u003e scalability improvement, but merely enabling users to opt-in for\n\u003e another security model.\n\u003e\n\u003e While obviously any future with wider adoption will need different\n\u003e technologies that have different trade-offs, and anyone is free to\n\u003e choose their security model, I don't think this particular one is\n\u003e interesting. In terms of validation cost to auditors, it is as bad as\n\u003e just a capacity increase on chain, while simultaneously adding the\n\u003e extra risk of miners being able to vote to steal your money.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\n\u003e -- \n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170711/1de23cb2/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e8fecee754f2cb784151399045b423bd8cd74900456726c87ea4b6f5c7980d7450abd4cb0a9724148f14a006983376b7eab9e638d1a5b4db2432a7244a1b1a8d"
}