Bitcoin Forum

nothing to see here  :(

Is it similar to BIP-300 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0300.mediawiki) and BIP-301 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0301.mediawiki)?

It does not seem similar to them at all because the Drivechain BIPs propose to make an on-chain "deposit" and "withdraw" feature from sidechains, where the confirmations for the withdrawal process at least totaling in more than a hundred thousand. While OP is proposing a singular blockchain running along side the mainnet with a (fixed?) block size limit.

Because that would be instantly rejected. Many times people hear "you cannot increase block size", but because they have no idea, how to scale things correctly, they cannot see any other solution, so they end up with "obscured block size increase".

We had 1 MB limit. It was reached.
Now we have 4 MB limit, and guess what, it was reached.
After Ordinals, developers will reject any proposal to increase block size, because that limit will also be reached, no matter how high it would be.

I cannot find any sentence, where OP would say it would be obligatory to run both chains. In sidechains, you can run mainchain-only, both chains, or even sidechain-only, it depends what type of client you need.

There is a difference between obligatory link, and optional link. I think sidechains should be optionally linked, and also through commitments to make it more private. In case of obligatory link, it would be just de-facto block size increase, in the same way as Segwit commitment is.

What's the point of having a "target transaction capacity"? You went to the technical part, of what it means, or how it's connected to the block interval, but you've skipped the "why" part. But just to catch you out, miners can bypass any "transactions required per block" requirement, as they can just create transactions where they send 0 coins to nowhere.

This is extremely important. Most people I know, use bitcoin because the inflation schedule is known. You can tell what the inflation rate will be in 30 years, an invaluable property for money of that kind.

I'm still struggling to see the solution to the problem. So what you're proposing is:
- make the block interval variable.
- make the inflation rate variable.
- separate the blockchain into headchain, bodychain and crownchain (so SPV with extra steps?)

Define "counterfeit blockchain".

Network latency should not be involved inside calculating the block difficulty, because that opens up a DDoS attack where the routers in front of the nodes can include an additional time "doing nothing" using flashed firmware, to artificially increase the ping and have an influence in lowering the block difficulty.

Latency should be used for just deciding which peers to connect to.

Exactly this. From my understanding compact block is a way to propagate new blocks with less data needed to transmit and thus likely resulting in speedier propagation with less latency. If the receiving node has all transactions of the new block in its mempool, then it can reconstruct the new block on its own and doesn't need to fetch the whole new block from another node which already has it.