Published on: 2017-07-12T22:07:47+00:00
In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, there was a debate about the security model of adding consensus rules via softfork in Drivechain. CryptAxe disagreed that it would encourage more risky behavior and explained that the risks associated with drivechains were not due to how new consensus rules would be added, but rather were similar to the risk associated with the P2SH softfork. Tao Effect questioned whether full nodes validate the script in P2SH and SegWit, while CryptAxe argued that anyone-can-spend outputs are used by less than 0.1% of users and most software doesn't even allow for the possibility. Luke-Jr and Lopp were cited as sources who had done research on the cost of stealing these outputs.Greg questioned Pieter's objection to Drivechain's security model and whether miners have complete control over the coins. The usage of anyone-can-spend outputs in Drivechain was discussed, with concerns about its impact on Bitcoin's security. Proponents argued that Drivechain has a different security model and most users will not have to go through the Drivechain withdrawal process. There are ongoing discussions about better options for sidechains.Paul Sztorc defended Drivechain and argued that it is unfair to characterize it as an unmistakable weakening of Bitcoin's security guarantees. He admitted that Drivechain outputs have a different security model than other contracts, as they are controlled by miners. Tao Effect raised concerns about the security of sidechains allowing miners to steal bitcoins. Greg Slepak criticized the adoption of Drivechain and expressed concerns about compromising Bitcoin's security.Karl Johan Alm suggested that Bitcoin development differs from Linux kernel development and recommended having a roadmap to give users insights into what is being planned for Bitcoin. Tom Zander agreed with the suggestion and emphasized the importance of individual groups proposing solutions and letting the market decide. There were discussions about roadmaps for Bitcoin development. Gregory Maxwell suggested focusing on finalization and release processes rather than creating roadmaps. Paul Sztorc advocated for an updated roadmap to clarify priorities, but also acknowledged the challenges of setting specific deadlines. The discussions also touched on transparency, communication, and potential influences on Bitcoin's direction.In an email exchange, objections to Drivechain's security model were discussed. Concerns were raised about miners having the ability to steal bitcoins through sidechains. The conversation also explored the topic of roadmaps and their effectiveness in communicating development plans. Disagreements arose regarding research, input from contributors, and reliable communication channels within the Bitcoin industry.A person noticed that an email sent by Gregory Maxwell was actually written in 2016, causing confusion. The email included information on Bitcoin, including a section on roadmaps. Paul Sztorc responded to the email, criticizing the latest proposal for scaling Bitcoin and expressing concerns about control versus collaboration.Overall, the discussions revolved around the security model of Drivechain, concerns about compromising Bitcoin's security, the usage of anyone-can-spend outputs, the need for roadmaps, and challenges in communication and coordination within the Bitcoin industry.Bitcoin developer Paul Sztorc has proposed that the 2015 scaling roadmap for Bitcoin is outdated and in need of revision. The previous roadmap had successfully brought the Bitcoin community together to address scalability issues, but given that it is now almost 19 months old, Sztorc argues that it should be updated. His suggestion is to remove what has already been accomplished, introduce new innovations and approaches, and update deadlines and projections.Sztorc's draft of the new roadmap includes completed items such as VersionBits (BIP9), Compact Blocks (BIP152), Check Sequence Verify (BIP112), and Segregated Witness (BIP141), which is estimated to increase capacity by a factor of 2.2 once activated. The Lightning Network, a technology that allows for off-chain transactions, is also complete and awaiting the activation of SegWit. Other upcoming improvements mentioned in the draft are Transaction Compression, which could improve scalability by around 20%, and Schnorr Signature Aggregation, expected to be ready by Q4 of 2016 and resulting in storage and bandwidth savings of at least 25%.In terms of increasing capacity further, Sztorc suggests the implementation of Drivechain, which allows bitcoins to be temporarily moved to "alternative" blockchain networks, albeit with less decentralization. If these improvements prove insufficient, a hard fork may be necessary to increase the block size. Spoonnet is currently seen as the most attractive option for such a hard fork. However, safe deployment methods for any changes are also being considered.While acknowledging the success of the previous scaling roadmap, Sztorc believes it is time for an update to reflect new advancements and developments. He welcomes feedback on his draft and encourages edits to be made. Additionally, Sztorc emphasizes the value of an updated roadmap even for those who choose not to sign it, as their refusal would still provide valuable information.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T21:20:23.751052+00:00