On 2/26/2022 1:43 AM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev wrote:
...
Drivechains are not a scaling solution [FOOTNOTE 1] ...
I personally am interested only in scaling solutions, adding more
non-scaling-useable functionality is not of interest to me and I do not really
care
...
But if there is consensus that those arguments are bogus, then go ahead --- add
Drivechains and/or recursive covenants.
...
[FOOTNOTE 1] Sidechains are not a scaling solution ... Blockchains are
inefficient ... and you have to show your transaction to everyone.
...
Now you might conter-argue that you can have multiple smaller sidechains and
just use HTLCs to trade across them ... I would then counter-counter-argue that
bringing this to the most extreme conclusion, you would have tons of sidechains
with only 2 participants each ...
Do you really hang your entire --"sidechains are not a scaling solution"--
argument on this frail logic?
The scaling strategy (in LN and DC) is the same: try NOT to "show your transaction
to everyone". The details are of course different.
I think largeblock sidechains should be reconsidered:
* They are not a blocksize increase.
* They endorse the principle of scaling in layers.
* They allow users to be different. Some can pay more (for more
decentralization), some less (for less decentralization).
(We are currently gambling the entire future of BTC, on the premise that
strong decentralization will always be needed at all points in time.)
(This leaves us vulnerable to a strategy where our adversaries temporarily
favor/promote centralized chains, so as to "domesticate" / control these in the
future.)
* We can learn from past mistakes -- when a new largeblock sidechain is
needed, we can make a new one from scratch, using everything we know.
* Different teams can compete, releasing different chains independently; thus curtailing
"toxicity".
* All of the fees, paid on all blockchains, arrive as revenue to the same
group of miners, thus improving total hashrate/difficulty.
* Sidechains will organize geographically, which may help security (ie, USA could
spitefully run full nodes of the "China" largeblock sidechain).
* Relative to LN, users enjoy: unlimited "inbound liquidity", can receive
money while offline, no risk that the channel will close, etc.
Certainly, sidechains are NOT for everyone. (Just as [I imagine] the LN is not
for everyone.)
However, in 2015, many hardfork-largeblockers said: "we do not run a full node, full
nodes are not important; we use SPV; read the whitepaper" etc.
They used SPV completely; and wanted large blocks. Presumably they would be happy
users of a largeblock sidechain. So it would be >0 users.
Sadly, this idea is neglected, (I think) because of its unfortunate resemblance
to naive-largeblock-ism. This is irrational.
***
You have emphasized the following relation: "you have to show your transaction to
everyone" = "thing doesn't scale".
However, in LN, there is one transaction which you must, in fact, "show to
everyone": your channel-opener.
Amusingly, in the largeblock sidechain, there is not. You can onboard using
only the blockspace of the SC.
(One "rich guy" can first shift 100k coins Main-to-Side, and he can henceforth
onboard many users over there. Those users can then onboard new users, forever.)
So it would seem to me, that you are on the ropes, even by your own criterion.
[Footnote 1]
***
Perhaps, someone will invent a way, to LN-onboard WITHOUT needing new layer1
bytes.
If so, a "rich man" could open a LN channel, and gradually transfer it to new
people.
Such a technique would need to meet two requirements (or, so it seems to me):
#1: The layer1 UTXO (that defines the channel) can never change (ie, the
32-bytes which define the p2sh/tapscript/covenant/whatever, must stay
what-they-were when the channel was opened).
#2: The new part-owners (who are getting coins from the rich man), will have
new pubkeys which are NOT known, until AFTER the channel is opened and
confirmed on the blockchain.
Not sure how you would get both #1 and #2 at the same time. But I am not up to
date on the latest LN research.
Paul
[Footnote 1]
I am certainly not a LN expert, so perhaps this analysis is misconceived. But consider
these "best case scenario" assumptions for LN:
* Each new channel-open consumes just 32 vbytes (since they are all done via one or more
"rich men" who batches all these into one block, 24/7/365)
* Each new channel-open, onboards 5 users at once who are a permanent trust
group / channel factory / what-have-you
(these five newcomers must coordinate with each other and the "rich man",
presumably via calendly link or whatever, for their one shot at getting on the
blockchain).
* That one single channel is able to meet 100% of the user's payment needs
(it never has any problems, with liquidity /balancing /routing /uptime
/hotwallet-crashing /counterparty-fees /etc)
(and also, people do NOT desire >1 channel for other reasons: their alt
nyms, small business, church, etc)
* 99.9% of the 1MB (vB) blocksize is used for channel-opens (the spare 1000 vb = the
coinbase + the single "rich man"-input)
* World population becomes a fixed 8.2 billion (and henceforth stops growing)
By simple envelop math, 6*24*365*(((1000000*.999)/32)*5) / 8.2 billion =
~exactly one year to onboard everyone.
But if the above assumptions contain, say, two orders of magnitude of
"optimism", then it would instead take 100 years.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
