Good morning again Paul,
> With sidechains, changing the ownership set requires that the sidechain
> produce a block.
> That block requires a 32-byte commitment in the coinbase.
> What is more, if any transfers occur on the sidechain, they cannot be real
> without a sidechain block, that has to
Good morning Paul,
> ***
>
> 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 si
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
Not bad, but not particularly good either.
Definitely correct:
1 (plus extra credit, it was originally 1008+2016),
3a "whales"
3b (atomic swaps is the "official" answer, but otc trading is also
acceptable, or just "trade" in general)
6
9 part one
Close, but not quite right:
2 (p
> If Drivechains are bad for whatever reason, we should not add recursive
covenants.
Bad "for who" was the crux of my question to you. Even if drivechains are
always bad for their users, I don't think that's a good enough reason to
block things that could allow people to build user-space drivechai
> m is how much people want to kill a sidechain, 0 = everybody would be sad
if it died and would rather burn all their BTC forever than continue living
Math is brutal
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 01:39 ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Good morning Paul,
>
>
>
Good morning ZmnSCPxj,
> Of course, I know of no such technique, but given that a technique
> (Drivechains) which before would have required its own consensus change,
> turns out to be implementable inside recursive covenants, then I wonder if
> there are other things that would have required t
@ZmnSCPxj
> we have already rejected Drivechains
I also think this is kind of dubious. I don't remember consensus being to
"reject" drivechains, as much as consensus was that it wasn't a priority
and there wasn't a lot of interest in doing on it from many people (I'm
sure Paul could comment furthe
The crux of the type of situation you're talking about is where a source
that might revert their payment by rbf double spending sends you money. You
mentioned this situation is "not unlikely". What kind of prevalence does
this happen with today?
Also my question is, if you've been paid by someone
