Drivechain - scaling solution?

[macman]

Has anybody taken a good look at this? https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014364.html

I'm not too tech savy nor do I understand all the details about the scaling issue, but I haven't really heard much about this idea. Could it be a solution? Why/why not?

[25hashcoin]

Sure, as long as we also increase blocksize so it's easily affordable to settle on chain. I'm not keeping all
my funds in drivechain tokens....but I oppose this until a blocksize increase is done as the creator suggests big blockers can just move over to drivechain...no thanks. More bullshit small blocker stuff like this must wait.

[jonald_fyookball]

Has anybody taken a good look at this? https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014364.html

I'm not too tech savy nor do I understand all the details about the scaling issue, but I haven't really heard much about this idea. Could it be a solution? Why/why not?

its more nonsense "Bitcoin as a settlement network" stuff.

No thanks, I'd rather scale on chain.

I don't need "banker types wanting to trade sidecoins for bitcoins at competitive rates".

[d5000]

I regard drivechains as one of the most interesting concepts to scale Bitcoin. The problem is that there is an opcode (= a command in Bitcoin's script language) missing for it to be implemented.

In all sidechain concepts, the "hard problem" is how to guarantee to return Bitcoins to people who want to "return" to the main chain leaving the side chain. Basically, in the proposal, miners are in charge of this task. It is, however, a process that takes a large amount of blocks (and time) to make it secure against attacks.

That could be seen as a disadvantage. But if Bitcoin implements Segwit or another malleability fix then it will be possible to trade sidechain tokens to main chain Bitcoins via atomic cross-chain trading. The value of a sidechain token, if traded in that way, will be surely a little bit lower than a main chain BTC but I don't think the difference will be more than 1-2% because if you have time you have the option to return to the main chain via the drivechain mechanism at a rate of 1:1.

its more nonsense "Bitcoin as a settlement network" stuff.

I consider the possibility to scam someone using a strong sidechain/drivechain far lower than in proposals like the Lightning Network. So the need for on-chain settlements will be most probably much lower.

[jonald_fyookball]

its more nonsense "Bitcoin as a settlement network" stuff.

I consider the possibility to scam someone using a strong sidechain/drivechain far lower than in proposals like the Lightning Network. So the need for on-chain settlements will be most probably much lower.

If that's your mindset, then why not just use coinbase and have all your friends use coinbase too -- you won't have to be on-chain at all.  Everything can be offchain.

[The One]

I regard drivechains as one of the most interesting concepts to scale Bitcoin. The problem is that there is an opcode (= a command in Bitcoin's script language) missing for it to be implemented.

In all sidechain concepts, the "hard problem" is how to guarantee to return Bitcoins to people who want to "return" to the main chain leaving the side chain. Basically, in the proposal, miners are in charge of this task. It is, however, a process that takes a large amount of blocks (and time) to make it secure against attacks.

That could be seen as a disadvantage. But if Bitcoin implements Segwit or another malleability fix then it will be possible to trade sidechain tokens to main chain Bitcoins via atomic cross-chain trading. The value of a sidechain token, if traded in that way, will be surely a little bit lower than a main chain BTC but I don't think the difference will be more than 1-2% because if you have time you have the option to return to the main chain via the drivechain mechanism at a rate of 1:1.

its more nonsense "Bitcoin as a settlement network" stuff.

I consider the possibility to scam someone using a strong sidechain/drivechain far lower than in proposals like the Lightning Network. So the need for on-chain settlements will be most probably much lower.

Looks like FIAT dosh to me. 21m to 42m.

[franky1]

drivechain = using the same soft fork exploit as other things meaning no proper consensus vote/veto. same old avoid user election, hand election to pools, then pitchfork the pools if they say nah thanks.. to then nuke th pools for having an opinion...
all while wasting another 2 years..

sidechains = altcoins

prominently, if people move coins to other altcoins (oops i mean sidechains) then those people end up protecting the sidechain by running a sidechain node not a bitcoin node.

if a side chain can do X. the obviously bitcoin could do X too.. so just friggin let bitcoin do X instead of dilute bitcoins userbase/utility by swaying people off chain/to new networks. (bitcoin node dilution)

seriously whats with devs trying to dismantle bitcoin by crippling it with removing fee controls, halting onchain growth, sliding in empty gestures using exploits that still only offers the same 7tx/s hope.

the 'timing is perfect' the link suggests.
to distract devs from scaling bitcoin with a new roadmap of wasting time on altcoins (oops sidechains) as the next route/level.. again diminishing any promise of time scales of when bitcoin will get its REAL block increase that dynamically moves at a heathy rate (real scaling).

if anyone wants to use sidchains.. just friggen sell your bitcoins and buy an altcoin... dont be fooled into locking bitcoins out of circulation until its a cesspit of only a couple nodes left and merchants not running nodes holding a blockchain of 'locked tx's' LTXO's

[d5000]

If that's your mindset, then why not just use coinbase and have all your friends use coinbase too -- you won't have to be on-chain at all.  Everything can be offchain.

Nope. Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure. Even LN isn't that centralized like Coinbase. Compare apples to apples, please.

[jonald_fyookball]

If that's your mindset, then why not just use coinbase and have all your friends use coinbase too -- you won't have to be on-chain at all.  Everything can be offchain.

Nope. Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure. Even LN isn't that centralized like Coinbase. Compare apples to apples, please.

Then use altcoins.  Altcoins aren't Bitcoin.

I'd rather stick with Bitcoin and on chain scaling.     

[d5000]

Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure.

Then use altcoins.  Altcoins aren't Bitcoin.

But they can be pegged to Bitcoin via the Drivechain mechanism - and then they are almost the same

You can use what you want, but then you must take the consequences - you have the choice between high fees or a terabyte-big blockchain which the average Joe can only use with a SPV or a centralized client.

[franky1]

Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure.

Then use altcoins.  Altcoins aren't Bitcoin.

But they can be pegged to Bitcoin via the Drivechain mechanism - and then they are almost the same

You can use what you want, but then you must take the consequences - you have the choice between high fees or a terabyte-big blockchain which the average Joe can only use with a SPV or a centralized client.

those that want to hop between chains are not going to want to sync to the different chain.. so these people wont be full node runners anyway.
making the side chain weak

secondly those that used to run bitcoin nodes see the bitcoin chain utility diminish meaning all they are holding is a big bag of LTXO which will make them want to turn off their full node too..

all side chains do is make merchant tools start accepting SidechainX coins at retailers and bitcoin just ends up bing a pile of LockedTXO's
where by an LN hub manager(in the most simplified layman terms) owns all the contracts to unlock the LTXO

[jonald_fyookball]

Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure.

Then use altcoins.  Altcoins aren't Bitcoin.

But they can be pegged to Bitcoin via the Drivechain mechanism - and then they are almost the same

You can use what you want, but then you must take the consequences - you have the choice between high fees or a terabyte-big blockchain which the average Joe can only use with a SPV or a centralized client.

Average Joe should be using SPV.    Even Gavin uses SPV. 

[franky1]

Average Joe should be using SPV.    Even Gavin uses SPV. 

trying to make it sound like SPV is the future and everyone should SPV is just hiding the importance of full nodes.

average joe should use whatever the F they want. they should have the freedom to decide for themselves what level of involvement they want have

[jonald_fyookball]

Average Joe should be using SPV.    Even Gavin uses SPV. 

  they should have the freedom to decide for themselves what level of involvement they want have

Yes, and they can. 

Where I have a problem is people saying the blocks need to be small so everyone can run full nodes, when that's totally unnecessary.

[tittensor]

If that's your mindset, then why not just use coinbase and have all your friends use coinbase too -- you won't have to be on-chain at all.  Everything can be offchain.

Nope. Drivechains are as decentralized as altcoins are, and most probably they would be more secure. Even LN isn't that centralized like Coinbase. Compare apples to apples, please.

Then use altcoins.  Altcoins aren't Bitcoin.

I'd rather stick with Bitcoin and on chain scaling.     

Agree, Altcoins must rely Bitcoin and Bitcoin not need follow Altcoins.
You can see when you trade altcoins, all value are converted to Bitcoin => Bitcoin is King
But Bitcoin need make a solution for Blockchain because spend very more time for confirm a block than use altcoins for exchange

[ulfsaar]

Average Joe should be using SPV.    Even Gavin uses SPV.  

  they should have the freedom to decide for themselves what level of involvement they want have

Yes, and they can.  

Where I have a problem is people saying the blocks need to be small so everyone can run full nodes, when that's totally unnecessary.

I agree, totally unnecessary.

edit: oops. my bad, this place has no space for newbs like me.

[d5000]

those that want to hop between chains are not going to want to sync to the different chain.. so these people wont be full node runners anyway.
making the side chain weak

Not necessarily.

Imagine the following scenario:

- There is a main chain as settlement layer (Oh, I named the Antichrist ).
- 6 Drivechains, each for one of the major continents, to be used in brick and mortar stores and online stores that sell material goods and operate in a geographical area.

We have now 7 chains. Let's say we have a transaction count that would fill for 7 MB blocks and that every chain has 1 MB blocks. Average Joe normally would only have to use two of these chains (main chain + continental chain), so he would have to sync 2 MB every 10 minutes.

So he would have to do only less than a third of the syncronization work, than if he was using a competitor with 7 MB blocks and the same capacity. So he probably could afford a full node even with today's consumer hardware.

This scenario ("geographical sidechains") is only an example. There could be other kinds of "specializations" for Drivechains (e.g. a B2B chain, a smart contract chain like RSK, a remittances chain ...).

secondly those that used to run bitcoin nodes see the bitcoin chain utility diminish meaning all they are holding is a big bag of LTXO which will make them want to turn off their full node too..

I don't see how Drivechains could affect them. They would run the main chain and a set of preferred drive chains and would also have lesser to store & validate, like in the first example.

[franky1]

those that want to hop between chains are not going to want to sync to the different chain.. so these people wont be full node runners anyway.
making the side chain weak

Not necessarily.

Imagine the following scenario:

- There is a main chain as settlement layer (Oh, I named the Antichrist ).
- 6 Drivechains, each for one of the major continents, to be used in brick and mortar stores and online stores that sell material goods and operate in a geographical area.

We have now 7 chains. Let's say we have a transaction count that would fill for 7 MB blocks and that every chain has 1 MB blocks. Average Joe normally would only have to use two of these chains (main chain + continental chain), so he would have to sync 2 MB every 10 minutes.

So he would have to do only less than a third of the syncronization work, than if he was using a competitor with 7 MB blocks and the same capacity. So he probably could afford a full node even with today's consumer hardware.

This scenario ("geographical sidechains") is only an example. There could be other kinds of "specializations" for Drivechains (e.g. a B2B chain, a smart contract chain like RSK, a remittances chain ...).

secondly those that used to run bitcoin nodes see the bitcoin chain utility diminish meaning all they are holding is a big bag of LTXO which will make them want to turn off their full node too..

I don't see how Drivechains could affect them. They would run the main chain and a set of preferred drive chains and would also have lesser to store & validate, like in the first example.

i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it.
its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node

[d5000]

i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it.
its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node

First: Why would they use the geographical drivechain? Because the transaction fees would be much lower.

Now: Why would they also use a Bitcoin node? I think if the main chain is small enough they won't have a problem running it as a (probably pruned) full node. Probably there would be people which only would run the Drivechain node. But these are also the people that tend to run light nodes anyway.

People and businesses concerned about the security of the system  and concious about the advantages of full nodes  - these that run Full Nodes presently - would very probably run also a Bitcoin node to be able to verify and strengthen the integrity of the system.

Apart from that, in the scenario I outlined the main chain would be the best choice for international transactions. People travel, there are migrants, businesses shipping/people buying things in different continents - these all would be benefit from running the Bitcoin mainchain node.

[franky1]

i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it.
its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node

First: Why would they use the geographical drivechain? Because the transaction fees would be much lower.

i have no clue why you decided to go with an example of 7 continents... ask yourself why you used that example!!!

if you were asking more generally what are the advantages of drive chains at all... then yes Africacoin may have super low fee's compared to americacoin.
who knows what different features each altcoin (drivechain) will offer

Now: Why would they also use a Bitcoin node? I think if the main chain is small enough they won't have a problem running it as a (probably pruned) full node. Probably there would be people which only would run the Drivechain node. But these are also the people that tend to run light nodes anyway.

1. if they are not transacting on the main CHAIN they they wont run the main chain.. EG
those that move from litecoin to bitcoin, dont bother running a litecoin node, because they are not using litecoin.
so if they start ONLY TRANSACTING on continent chain X, they will have less need to have 2 nodes running.

2. im not saying everyone will have this mindset. but SOME will.. which will dilute the full node count.. then with all the -nowitness -prunned options also dilute the full node count. making bitcoin weaker. again im not saying 100% drop nor 80% drop.. but enough of a drop to mak people realise the network has become less secure than before.

People and businesses concerned about the security of the system  and concious about the advantages of full nodes  - these that run Full Nodes presently - would very probably run also a Bitcoin node to be able to verify and strengthen the integrity of the system.

but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use.. so again SOME may stop running bitcoin nodes if all their customer base was purely continent X transacting.. but as i said it wont be a 100% drop of bitcoin.. but a noticable impact