Author: Pieter Wuille 2017-07-11 21:40:36
Published on: 2017-07-11T21:40:36+00:00
In an email conversation between Pieter and Paul Sztorc, Paul expressed his belief that Chris' viewpoint on drivechains was misrepresented by Pieter. He also stated his disagreement with Pieter's points of contention as they would apply to both drivechain-sourced capacity and hardfork-sourced capacity without improving scalability, only allowing users the opportunity to select a different security model. They both agreed that when every full node in the increased capacity single chain model corresponds to a node that validates both chains and all transfers between them in the drivechains, it becomes nearly equivalent in terms of ease of adoption, resource costs, and capacity. However, Pieter believes that this is not a realistic expectation and most people think about a situation where there are many chains that give an increased capacity combined but not everyone verifies all of them. This requires increased miner trust for preventing the other chains' coins from being illegally transferred to the chain that one is operating on. Paul also mentioned that since their sidechain coins cannot appreciate in value relative to the mainchain coins, users would only opt-in if they felt that they were sufficiently compensated for any and all risks. Hence, it is difficult to list this item as a drawback when, to the user, it is a strict improvement. Pieter argued that network effects or misinformation may push users beyond what is reasonable.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T03:17:39.268864+00:00