Published on: 2021-09-07T09:37:43+00:00
The conversation revolves around the scalability of blockchains and the use of sidechains to prototype new features for blockchain scaling. The idea is to create a federated sidechain as a demonstration and eventually integrate it into the Bitcoin blockchain. Sidechains can be utilized for smart contracts, which are limited on the Bitcoin Layer1, without affecting the base layer. It is mentioned that increasing the Drivechain security parameter can lead to slower sidechain->mainchain withdrawals, acting as a bottleneck for transfer amounts. The requirements for running a node on different sidechains differ, but the Lightning Network (LN) is expected to remain easy to install and maintain.There is a discussion regarding whether Stacks qualifies as a Bitcoin sidechain. It is argued that Stacks is not a sidechain since it has its own native token, which is not pegged to BTC and was premined. While Stacks utilizes Bitcoin as a storage and broadcast medium, some believe that its marketing contains misinformation that does not ultimately benefit Bitcoin.An email exchange between Prayank and ZmnSCPxj explores the distinctions between federated sidechains and Drivechains. Federated sidechains are custodial and rely on a predetermined signing set, while Drivechains employ mainchain miners as custodians. The security parameter in Drivechains affects the ease with which sidechain funds can be confiscated by a 51% attacker, resulting in slower sidechain->mainchain withdrawals. It is suggested that creating a federation with developer friends may be a better option for prototyping new features on sidechains. Rather than creating more blockchains, an alternative solution proposed is a 2-of-2 federation with atomic swap mechanisms, similar to the Lightning Network. Links to information on LND, Liquid, and Rootstock are provided as well.The conversation highlights the contrast between federated sidechains and Drivechains. Federated sidechains are custodial with a fixed signing set, potentially allowing the federation to abscond with the funds. In contrast, Drivechain custody is held by mainchain miners. However, a 51% attacker can confiscate sidechain funds, leading to slower sidechain->mainchain withdrawals and creating a bottleneck for transfer amounts. To counter the risk of confiscation, a "nuclear option" is proposed, where mainchain full nodes are upgraded to ignore historical blocks created by the 51% attacker. It is emphasized that if sidechains are intended for prototyping new features, it is better to create a federation with friends rather than utilizing a large and inefficient data structure like blockchain.The email thread also discusses the proposal for Drivechain in Bitcoin and associated BIPs. Concerns are expressed about the misaligned incentives that may encourage theft and "bad behavior." However, there is no apparent risk to the network itself. Stacks is mentioned as an alternative to Drivechain, capable of achieving similar goals. A comparison is made between Lightning-compatible Mimblewimble and Drivechain, with the former deemed more important for global-scale payments and improved fungibility, which cannot be safely implemented via Drivechain. The email thread provides links to articles, videos, and discussions covering Bitcoin's security, transactions, fees, critiques of Drivechain, and the differences between RSK and Ethereum. The author shares their personal opinion that sidechain projects should be encouraged. Furthermore, the thread addresses misleading information found on a website regarding Bitcoin and Ethereum's blocks mined, UTXO model, and failed transactions paying fees on Ethereum daily.Additionally, the article compares Liquid and Lightning, focusing on their trust models and on-ramps/off-ramps. It also discusses the security of Bitcoin and expected fees on layer 1 due to Drivechain. A Medium post is referenced, highlighting similarities and differences between RSK and Ethereum. A video by Paul Sztorc examines fees in relation to LN, Liquid, and Rootstock. A question on Bitcoin Stackexchange seeks clarification on Bitcoin transactions with layer 2 projects. Two critiques of Drivechain are mentioned on the project website, although the author disagrees with some points. The author expresses a preference for discussing these topics on forums rather than Twitter to avoid misinformation. They further express support for sidechain projects and curiosity about Drivechain. Lastly, improvements that impact fees such as Segwit, Layer 2, Batching, UTXO consolidation, Fee estimation, Coin selection, Exchanges, Wallets, etc. are mentioned.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T04:40:01.727250+00:00