{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-07-11\n📝 Original message:On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, \"Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nConcept ACK.\n\nIf drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scale\n\n\nI strongly disagree with that statement.\n\nDrivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a scalability\nimprovement, but merely enabling users to opt-in for another security model.\n\nWhile obviously any future with wider adoption will need different\ntechnologies that have different trade-offs, and anyone is free to choose\ntheir security model, I don't think this particular one is interesting. In\nterms of validation cost to auditors, it is as bad as just a capacity\nincrease on chain, while simultaneously adding the extra risk of miners\nbeing able to vote to steal your money.\n\nCheers,\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170711/6c7b8145/attachment.html\u003e"}