Author: Hampus Sjöberg 2017-07-13 13:17:13
Published on: 2017-07-13T13:17:13+00:00
The email thread in the context discusses the security of WT^ transactions in comparison to P2SH and SegWit transactions. The author argues that if the security of WT^ transactions could be improved to match that of P2SH and SegWit transactions, they would have fewer objections. However, they express doubt that this is possible.The discussion revolves around the security of drivechains and how it differs from softforks and P2SH transactions. The author argues that for softforks, 100% of nodes and miners need to upgrade to new rules to prevent temporary or permanent chainsplits. However, with drivechains, only interested nodes validate the other chain, which could result in a chainsplit if only a small percentage of miners are validating the other chain.To be fully secure, all nodes should have a fullnode for the drivechain. The author is skeptical about sidechains/drivechains as a scaling solution due to added complexity. The conversation also touches on different modes of use for drivechains (DC#0-3), and how they interact with the new rules. The author clarifies that DC does not allow miners to steal funds and the two concepts of "steal" being used to mean different things are conflated. This discussion is related to Bitcoin Core and is considered off-topic for the mailing list.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T02:10:34.018483+00:00