Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-03-04 📝 Original message:On 3/4/2022 7:35 AM, Billy ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-03-04
📝 Original message:On 3/4/2022 7:35 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote:
>> sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain ...
>
> A sidechain could stop supporting deposits from or withdrawals to
> bitcoin and completely break any relationship with the main chain.
> I agree this is not as sure of a thing as starting with an altcoin
> (which of course never has that kind of relationship with bitcoin).
> So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your scenario.
> However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely
> solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant).
It is hard to see how this "sidechain cuts off the mainchain" scenario
could plausibly be in enough people's interest:
* Miners would lose the block subsidy (ie, the 6.25 BTC, or whatever of
it that still remains), and txn fees from the mainchain and all other
merged mined chains.
* Developers would lose the ability to create a dissenting new piece of
software (and would instead be forced into a permanent USSR-style "one
party system" intellectual monoculture).
* Users would lose --permanently-- the ability to take their coins to
new blockchains, removing almost all of their leverage.
Furthermore, because sidechains cannot exist without their parent (but
not vice-versa), we can expect a large permanent interest in keeping
mainchain node costs low. Aka: very small mainchain blocks forever. So,
the shut-it-down mainchain-haters, would have to meet the question "why
not just leave things the way they are?". And the cheaper the
mainchain-nodes are, the harder that question is to answer.
However, if a sidechain really were so overwhelmingly popular as to
clear all of these hurdles, then I would first want to understand why it
is so popular. Maybe it is a good thing and we should cheer it on.
> Your anecdote about not running a full node is amusing, and I've often
> found myself in that position. I certainly agree different people are
> different and so different trade offs can be better for different
> people. However, the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock
> sidechain do better than both eg Visa and lightning?
Yes, that's true. There are very many tradeoffs in general:
1. Onboarding
2. Route Capacity / Payment Limits
3. Failed Payments
4. Speed of Payment
5. Receive while offline / need for interaction/monitoring/watchtowers
6. Micropayments
7. Types of fees charged, and for what
8. Contribution to layer1 security budget
9. Auditability (re: large organizations) / general complexity
LN is certainly better for 4 and 6. But everything else is probably up
for grabs. And this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. I just
made it up now.
(And, if the layer2 is harmless, then its existence can be justified via
one single net benefit, for some users, somewhere on the tradeoff-list.)
Paul
Published at
2023-06-07 23:05:03Event JSON
{
"id": "46bfe6117692ca1c9f79b0aff673d9649b7348163988e827e8bb512c7bc8dedf",
"pubkey": "7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be",
"created_at": 1686179103,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3f4afa40f1b3d3df02303b20f32131f3ef04d46df1c07a411f3b0335c1528661",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a55d270d415b622c1aafbf1becbc383111f100526d91af399d824a3c5ea0a2a3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-03-04\n📝 Original message:On 3/4/2022 7:35 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote:\n\u003e\u003e sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain ...\n\u003e \n\u003e A sidechain could stop supporting deposits from or withdrawals to \n\u003e bitcoin and completely break any relationship with the main chain.\n\u003e I agree this is not as sure of a thing as starting with an altcoin\n\u003e (which of course never has that kind of relationship with bitcoin).\n\u003e So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your scenario.\n\u003e However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely\n\u003e solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant).\n\n\nIt is hard to see how this \"sidechain cuts off the mainchain\" scenario \ncould plausibly be in enough people's interest:\n\n* Miners would lose the block subsidy (ie, the 6.25 BTC, or whatever of \nit that still remains), and txn fees from the mainchain and all other \nmerged mined chains.\n* Developers would lose the ability to create a dissenting new piece of \nsoftware (and would instead be forced into a permanent USSR-style \"one \nparty system\" intellectual monoculture).\n* Users would lose --permanently-- the ability to take their coins to \nnew blockchains, removing almost all of their leverage.\n\nFurthermore, because sidechains cannot exist without their parent (but \nnot vice-versa), we can expect a large permanent interest in keeping \nmainchain node costs low. Aka: very small mainchain blocks forever. So, \nthe shut-it-down mainchain-haters, would have to meet the question \"why \nnot just leave things the way they are?\". And the cheaper the \nmainchain-nodes are, the harder that question is to answer.\n\nHowever, if a sidechain really were so overwhelmingly popular as to \nclear all of these hurdles, then I would first want to understand why it \nis so popular. Maybe it is a good thing and we should cheer it on.\n\n\n\u003e Your anecdote about not running a full node is amusing, and I've often \n\u003e found myself in that position. I certainly agree different people are \n\u003e different and so different trade offs can be better for different \n\u003e people. However, the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock \n\u003e sidechain do better than both eg Visa and lightning?\n\nYes, that's true. There are very many tradeoffs in general:\n\n1. Onboarding\n2. Route Capacity / Payment Limits\n3. Failed Payments\n4. Speed of Payment\n5. Receive while offline / need for interaction/monitoring/watchtowers\n6. Micropayments\n7. Types of fees charged, and for what\n8. Contribution to layer1 security budget\n9. Auditability (re: large organizations) / general complexity\n\nLN is certainly better for 4 and 6. But everything else is probably up \nfor grabs. And this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. I just \nmade it up now.\n\n(And, if the layer2 is harmless, then its existence can be justified via \none single net benefit, for some users, somewhere on the tradeoff-list.)\n\nPaul",
"sig": "7c6f22a8ff9e743ae1a37a7b1f86a80113fa6a65292832934dc04241abc4c5c4705e71a59226f3d85f42d279a161abf90d84ffc3183d2d1bc369fe63d195279d"
}