Published on: 2022-03-04T20:06:50+00:00
In an email exchange on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Billy Tetrud discusses sidechains and their potential to address the issue of a less-secure altcoin dominating Bitcoin. While he acknowledges some merits of sidechains in this scenario, Tetrud points out that they do not completely solve the problem. He raises concerns about a sidechain cutting off the main chain and whether it would be in the best interest of enough people. Tetrud also explores the benefits and drawbacks of largeblock sidechains compared to other payment systems like Visa and Lightning. Various tradeoffs, such as onboarding, payment speed, micropayments, fees, and contribution to layer 1 security budget, are considered. Tetrud concludes that if a layer 2 is harmless, its existence can be justified by one net benefit for some users.Another discussion revolves around the size of commitments needed for sidechains and channel factories. User ZmnSCPxj suggests a solution to reduce on-chain bytes by utilizing tweaks in the miner's key and unused TapScript. This eliminates the need for separate commitments and reduces data requirements. Additionally, sidechains can push zero bytes on-chain by using OP_RETURN inside TapScript for checking purposes.The conversation centers around the potential dominance of a sidechain over Bitcoin and how it could prevent an altcoin from dominating. The consensus is that having all chains, centralized and decentralized, in the same monetary unit ensures the decentralized chain always exists without interference from monetary network effects. However, it is argued that a sidechain cannot exist without its main chain, and if it becomes too popular, people may stop using the main chain altogether. The discussion also compares the benefits of a largeblock sidechain to Visa and Lightning and considers the burden on Bitcoin-only nodes. The potential advantages to users of a largeblock sidechain are discussed, including lower fees and more decentralization. The idea of sweeping fiat transactions into a largeblock sidechain is also explored.Another conversation between Billy Tetrud and Paul focuses on the use of sidechains in Bitcoin. Billy proposes that all chains, decentralized and centralized, being in the same monetary unit ensures the existence of the decentralized chain without interference from network effects. Paul disagrees, stating that sidechains cannot exist without their main chain and gives an example using a zcash sidechain. They also discuss the merits of largeblock sidechains and how they can allow users to easily sweep fiat transactions into the BTC universe. Paul believes that largeblock sidechains would not burden Bitcoin Core full nodes.The bitcoin-dev mailing list discussion covers various topics related to Bitcoin scalability, sidechains, network effects, and the security of Lightning Network and Drivechains. Participants argue that sidechains are necessary to prevent people from switching entirely to altcoins, which could be heavily exploited by attackers. Another participant suggests that having all chains in the same monetary unit guarantees the existence of the decentralized chain. The discussion delves into the security risks of LN channel factories and compares the security of LN and Drivechains. The participants emphasize the importance of separating the onboarding rate from the payment rate for designing different structures.The email exchange on the bitcoin-dev mailing list centers around the use of recursive covenants and their potential impact on Bitcoin. The discussion explores implementing techniques like Drivechains using recursive covenants. While concerns about negative effects on Bitcoin or the user base are raised, it is suggested that separate soft forks can be used to add recursive covenants if consensus is reached. The rejection of Drivechains in Bitcoin is also discussed, with arguments made against their implementation due to their distinct security model and potential block size increase. However, proponents argue that Drivechains could have a positive impact and should be given a chance. The debate includes discussions on miner censorship, block size increase, and the need for consensus changes. Paul Sztorc responds to the rejection of Drivechains, stating that there is no strong incentive for mainchain miners and sidechain validators to merge their businesses. He refutes claims that Drivechains would degrade security and believes that Drivechain was ahead of its time and will eventually be adopted. Other discussions revolve around encumbrances and restrictions on spend from covenants, the potential harm to the fungibility of UTXOs, and the shift in risk models. Some argue that introducing different risk models can be damaging to fungibility, while others believe that being able to reject certain coins is at the heart of Bitcoin's security. The email exchanges highlight the ongoing debates and considerations surrounding recursive covenants, Drivechains, and their potential impact on Bitcoin.In a recent email to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Jeremy Rubin raises concerns about proposals enabling more "featureful" covenants by adding additional computation into bitcoin script. They emphasize the importance of limiting operations in bitcoin script to "verification" rather than "computation" whenever possible. The author expresses uncertainty about these proposals and fears that opcodes like OP_CAT and OP_TX introduce unnecessary complexity into the script.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T05:36:35.237176+00:00