<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-05-22&#xA;📝 Original message:Dear list,&#xA;&#xA;I&#39;ve been working on &#34;drivechain&#34;, a sidechain enabling technology, for&#xA;some time.&#xA;&#xA;* The technical info site is here: www.drivechain.info&#xA;* The changes to Bitcoin are here:&#xA;https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/mainchainBMM&#xA;* A Blank sidechain template is here:&#xA;https://github.com/drivechain-project/bitcoin/tree/sidechainBMM&#xA;&#xA;As many of you know, I&#39;ve been seeking feedback in person, at various&#xA;conferences and meetups over the past year, most prominently Scaling&#xA;Milan. And I intend to continue to seek feedback at Consensus2017 this&#xA;week, so if you are in NYC please just walk up and start talking to me!&#xA;&#xA;But I also wanted to ask the list for feedback. Initially, I was&#xA;hesitant because I try not to consume reviewers&#39; scarce time until the&#xA;author has put in a serious effort. However, I may have waiting too&#xA;long, as today it is actually quite close to a working release.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Scaling Implications&#xA;---------------------&#xA;&#xA;This upgrade would have significant scaling implications. Since it is&#xA;the case that sidechains can be added by soft fork, and since each of&#xA;these chains will have its own blockspace, this theoretically removes&#xA;the blocksize limit from &#34;the Bitcoin system&#34; (if one includes&#xA;sidechains as part of such a system). People who want a LargeBlock&#xA;bitcoin can just move their BTC over to such a network [1], and their&#xA;txns will have no longer have an impact on &#34;Bitcoin Core&#34;. Thus, even&#xA;though this upgrade does not actually increase &#34;scalability&#34; per se, it&#xA;may in fact put an end to the scalability debate...forever.&#xA;&#xA;This work includes the relatively new concept of &#34;Blind Merged Mining&#34;&#xA;[2] which I developed in January to allow SHA256^2 miners to merge-mine&#xA;these &#34;drivechains&#34;, even if these miners aren&#39;t running the actual&#xA;sidechain software. The goal is to prevent sidechains from affecting the&#xA;levelness of the mining &#34;playing field&#34;. BMM is conceptually similar to&#xA;ZooKeeV [3] which Peter Todd sketched out in mid-2013. BMM is not&#xA;required for drivechain, but it would address some of the last remaining&#xA;concerns.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Total Transaction Fees in the Far Future&#xA;-----------------------------------------&#xA;&#xA;Some people feel that a maximum blocksize limit is needed to ensure that&#xA;future total equilibrium transaction fees are non-negligible. I&#xA;presented [4] on why I don&#39;t agree, 8 months ago. The reviewers I spoke&#xA;to over the last year have stopped bringing this complaint up, but I am&#xA;not sure everyone feels that way.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Juxtaposition with a recent &#34;Scaling Compromise&#34;&#xA;-------------------------------------------------&#xA;&#xA;Recently, a scalability proposal began to circulate on social media. As&#xA;far as I could tell, it goes something like &#34;immediately activate&#xA;SegWit, and then HF to double the nonwitness blockspace to 2MB within 12&#xA;months&#34;. But such a proposal is quite meager, compared to a &#34;LargeBlock&#xA;Drivechain&#34;. The drivechain is better on both fronts, as it would not&#xA;require a hardfork, and could *almost immediately* add _any_ amount of&#xA;extra blockspace (specifically, I might expect a BIP101-like LargeBlock&#xA;chain that has an 8 MB maxblocksize, which doubles every two years).&#xA;&#xA;In other words, I don&#39;t know why anyone would support that proposal over&#xA;mine. The only reasons would be either ignorance (ie, unfamiliarity with&#xA;drivechain) or because there are still nagging unspoken complaints about&#xA;drivechain which I apparently need to hear and address.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Other Thoughts&#xA;---------------&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, anyone who worked on the &#34;first generation&#34; of sidechain&#xA;technology (the skiplist) or the &#34;second generation&#34; (federated /&#xA;Liquid), will find that this is very different.&#xA;&#xA;I will admit that I am very pessimistic about any conversation that&#xA;involves scalability. It is often said that &#34;talking politics lowers&#xA;your IQ by 25 points&#34;. Bitcoin scalability conversations seem to drain&#xA;50 points. (Instead of conversing, I think people should quietly work on&#xA;whatever they are passionate about until their problem either is solved,&#xA;or it goes away for some other reason, or until we all agree to just&#xA;stop talking about it.)&#xA;&#xA;Cheers,&#xA;Paul&#xA;&#xA;[1] http://www.drivechain.info/faq/#can-sidechains-really-help-with-scaling&#xA;[2] http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blind-merged-mining/&#xA;[3] https://s3.amazonaws.com/peter.todd/bitcoin-wizards-13-10-17.log&#xA;[4]&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YErLEuOi3xU&amp;list=PLw8-6ARlyVciNjgS_NFhAu-qt7HPf_dtg&amp;index=4</html></oembed>