Published on: 2015-12-30T23:13:56+00:00
In a conversation between Emin Gün Sirer and Peter Todd, several technical and economic criticisms of Emin's proposal for Bitcoin-United were discussed. One technical criticism was that unified miners would mine transactions on Dum first and then on Dee, which contradicted the claim that users could use Dee natively without paying fees to get a transaction into Dum. Another technical criticism raised concerns about the vulnerability of Dum if another group launched a false-flag attack against Dee. The economic criticism centered around the difficulty of reaching a compromise if there was a difference in market cap value between the chains.Peter Todd also noted that most multisig transactions are hidden behind p2sh, making it difficult to determine what keys are involved. However, he acknowledged that Bitcoin-United relies on a notion of transaction equivalence that should be immune to malleability issues and compatible with segwit. He suggested simpler and more predictable solutions for achieving consensus, such as proof of stake voting or Adam Bank's extension blocks suggestions. Overall, Peter Todd concluded that the proposal was not a good idea and that any Bitcoin United scheme would quickly diverge and fail.In the email conversation, Emin Gün Sirer discussed the notion of transaction equivalence and its susceptibility to malleability issues in Bitcoin-United. The system considers transactions equal if they consume the same inputs and result in the same outputs, regardless of miner fees. Multikey transactions are evaluated based on their inputs and outputs, allowing different sets of two keys to sign a 2-out-of-3 payment on Dum and Dee. However, Peter Todd highlighted the challenge of determining the keys involved in multisig transactions hidden behind p2sh. He suggested exploring segwit transactions, which offer a better notion of non-malleable transactions. Despite these considerations, the susceptibility to divergence and failure due to malleability issues casts doubt on the success of Bitcoin United. Simpler and more predictable solutions like proof of stake voting or Adam Bank's extension blocks may be more viable for achieving consensus.Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer introduced the technique of Bitcoin-United as a means to unite bitcoin factions following a fork. The technique aims to eliminate double-spends by transferring transactions from one chain to another and considering the intersection of transactions on both chains. Minting new coins and collecting mining fees on both chains while preserving the 21M maximum is proposed through a one-to-one correspondence between coins. This technique allows for the creation of a cohesive coin even if the core developers are split or if one fork is non-cooperative. However, questions arise regarding the preferences of native clients for one chain over the other and the impact on the value of native-A or native-B coins. The authors are actively addressing these questions but shared the Bitcoin-United idea with the community to gather feedback and offer hope for future consensus.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T17:21:17.303580+00:00