Author: Paul Sztorc 2022-02-27 00:58:01
Published on: 2022-02-27T00:58:01+00:00
In a recent email to bitcoin-dev, ZmnSCPxj stated that drivechains are not a scaling solution and that they are only interested in scaling solutions. They argue that blockchains are inefficient, and showing transactions to everyone is not necessary for scaling. However, if consensus is reached on the matter, then drivechains and recursive covenants could be added. The writer of the email thinks that largeblock sidechains should be reconsidered as they do not endorse the principle of scaling in layers. They allow users to pay more or less for decentralization, and different teams can compete, releasing different chains independently. All fees paid on all blockchains arrive as revenue to the same group of miners, improving total hashrate/difficulty. Relative to LN, users enjoy unlimited "inbound liquidity," can receive money while offline, and no risk that the channel will close. However, the writer recognizes that sidechains are not for everyone, but they propose that hardfork-largeblockers would be happy users of a largeblock sidechain. The idea of largeblock sidechains is neglected because of its unfortunate resemblance to naive-largeblock-ism.The email also discusses the relationship between showing transactions to everyone and scalability. In LN, there is one transaction which you must show to everyone, your channel-opener. But in the largeblock sidechain, there is not. You can onboard using only the blockspace of the SC. Finally, the email proposes a technique for LN-onboarding without needing new layer1 bytes. A rich man could open an LN channel and gradually transfer it to new people. This technique would need to meet two requirements: the layer1 UTXO can never change, and the new part-owners will have new pubkeys that are not known until after the channel is opened and confirmed on the blockchain.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T16:41:52.254510+00:00