rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-07-11 📝 Original message:On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" < 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170711/6c7b8145/attachment.html>