> "these sidechains are terrible" on Monday and then "these sidechains are so good they will replace the mainchain" on Tuesday
Your premise is that a sidechain might come to dominate bitcoin, and that this would be better than an altcoin dominating bitcoin. Did I misunderstand you? Not quite sure why you're balking at me simply confirming your premise. > sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain .. imagine .. a zcash sidechain, and someone claims they deposited 1000 BTC A sidechain could stop supporting deposits from or withdrawals to bitcoin and completely break any relationship with the main chain. I agree this is not as sure of a thing as starting with an altcoin (which of course never has that kind of relationship with bitcoin). So I do think there are some merits to sidechains in your scenario. However, I don't think its quite accurate to say it completely solves the problem (of a less-secure altcoin becoming dominant). Your anecdote about not running a full node is amusing, and I've often found myself in that position. I certainly agree different people are different and so different trade offs can be better for different people. However, the question is: what tradeoffs does a largeblock sidechain do better than both eg Visa and lightning? >Wouldn't life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat >transactions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family of >largeblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes. I guess its not as clear to me. We agree it wouldn't significantly burden Bitcoin-only nodes, but not being a burden is not a sufficient reason to do something, only reason to not prevent it. But what are the benefits to a user of that chain? Slightly lower fees than main bitcoin? More decentralization than Visa or Venmo? Doesn't lightning already do better on both accounts? On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:00 PM Paul Sztorc <truthc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2022 12:39 AM, Billy Tetrud wrote: > > This entire issue is avoided completely, if all the chains --decentralized > and centralized-- and in the same monetary unit. Then, the monetary network > effects never interfere, and the decentralized chain is always guaranteed to > exist. > > It sounds like what you're saying is that without side chains, everyone might > switch entirely to some altcoin and bitcoin will basically die. And at that > point, the insecurity of that coin people switched to can be heavily > exploited by some attacker(s). Is that right? > > Yes, precisely. > > Its an interesting thought experiment. However, it leads me to wonder: if a > sidechain gets so popular that it dominates the main chain, why would people > keep that main chain around at all? > > For some reason, this is a very popular question. I suppose if you believe in > "one size fits all" chain philosophy (see comment below), it makes sense to > say "these sidechains are terrible" on Monday and then "these sidechains are > so good they will replace the mainchain" on Tuesday. > > In any event, sidechains cannot exist without their mainchain (as I see it). > For example, imagine that you are on a zcash sidechain, and someone claims > they deposited 1000 BTC, from Bitcoin Core into this sidechain? Do you give > them 1000 z-BTC, or not? Without the mainchain, > you can't tell. > > If you run the Bip300 DriveNet demo software (drivechain.info/releases), you > will see for yourself: the test-sidechains are absolutely inert, UNTIL they > have rpc access to the mainchain. (Exactly the same way that a LN node needs > a Bitcoin Core node.) > > > > > someone is actually in the wrong, if they proactively censor an experiment > > of any type. If a creator is willing to stand behind something, then it > > should be tried. > > > it makes no difference if users have their funds stolen from a centralized > > Solana contract or from a bip300 centralized bit-Solana sidechain. I don't > > see why the tears shed would be any different. > > I agree with you. My point was not that we should stop anyone from doing > this. My point was only that we shouldn't advocate for ideas we think aren't > good. You were advocating for a "largeblock sidechain", and unless you have > good reasons to think that is an idea likely to succeed and want to share > them with us, then you shouldn't be advocating for that. But certainly if > someone *does* think so and has their own reasons, I wouldn't want to censor > or stop them. But I wouldn't advocate for them to do it unless their ideas > were convincing to me, because I know enough to know the dangers of large > block blockchains. > > Yes, I strongly agree, that we should only advocate for ideas we believe in. > > I do not believe in naive layer1 largeblockerism. But I do believe in > sidechain largeblockism. > > Something funny once happened to me when I was on a Bitcoin conference > panel*. There were three people: myself, a Blockstream person, and an > (ex)BitPay person. The first two of us, were valiantly defending the small > block position. I gave my usual speech: that node costs must remain low, so > that people can run full nodes. The largeblocker mentioned that they ran many > nodes (including BCH nodes etc) and didn't mind the cost, so I disclosed --in > a good-natured way-- that I do not even run a BTC full node myself (out of > choice). Thus, I was yammering about software I wasn't even running, I had no > skin in the game! Lo and behold -- my Blockstream smallblocker > ally-on-the-panel, immediately admitted to everyone that he did not run a > full node either. The only node-runner was the largeblocker. The audience > found this very amusing (as did I). > > We smallblockers, justified our sinful nodeless behavior, as follows > (paraphrasing): we receive BTC mainly from people that we know (and have a > long-term relationship with); our receipts are not time sensitive; we are not > paid in BTC that often; if payments turned out to be forged we would have > enormous recourse against our counterparties; etc. > > We did not run full nodes, because we did not need to draw on the > blockchain's powers, **for those transactions**. > > Which is my point: people are different, and transactions are different. I > make many transactions today, with VISA or Venmo. These are not > censorship-resistant, but somehow I survive the month, without bursting into > flames. > > Wouldn't life be better, if we Bitcoiners could easily sweep those fiat > transactions into *some* part of the BTC universe? (For example, a family of > largeblock sidechains). To me the answer is clearly yes. > > Unlike layer1-largeblockism, no one running Bitcoin Core ever needs to see > these 'btc' transactions (the same as we don't see them today, on account of > them not existing at all); they do not burden Bitcoin Core full nodes. Hence > why it seems like a good idea to me. > > An SPV-wallet-of-a-largeblock-sidechain, is of course, a *disgrace* compared > to a full-node-of-smallblock-mainchain-Bitcoin-Core. But, it is emphatically > superior to Venmo / VISA or even "custodial LN". And certainly superior to > nothing. > > Paul > > * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3cvH2eWqfU > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
