rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> > So what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we > wait to hard fork until Blockstream Elements is ready for deploying on the > main network, and then have One Grand Hardfork that introduces all the > scalability work you guys have been working on (like Segregated Witness and > Lightning)? Apparently lightning doesn't require Segregated Witnesses: cltv and rcltv may be enough (although I'm not up to date to the latest designs). I definitely don't think we should wait to have SW ready to be deployable in Bitcoin to have other hardforks. I think we should have an uncontroversial hardfork as soon as possible, if anything, to set a precedent and show the world that hardforks are possible in Bitcoin, see https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-forks.org#code > Or is the plan to avoid controversy by people voluntarily moving their > bitcoin to a sidechain where all this scaling-up innovation happens? Any scaling up innovation that happens in sidechains can be adopted by Bitcoin too. In fact, some of those changes (like op_maturity/rcltv/scv) are needed in Bitcoin for a fully p2p Bitcoin sidechain to be even possible. I really think lightning should be possible in Bitcoin main (and not just sidechains) as soon as possible. > And any plan that requires inventing brand-new technology is going to be > riskier than scaling up what we already have and understand, which is why I > think it is worthwhile to scale up what we have IN ADDITION TO working on > great projects like Segregated Witness and Lightning. Not necessarily. How are older payment channels designs (different from lightning) that don't even require cltv riskier than a hardfork? In any case, yes, both things are kind of orthogonal and we can work on both (and more) at the same time.