d5000
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4018
Merit: 7130
Decentralization Maximalist
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 27, 2019, 09:45:59 PM |
|
This looks almost too good to be true, but thanks for sharing.
I've read until the "high level description". As I understand, the proposal consists of a "sidechain" created and operated by a centralized party, who commits regularly the state of the user accounts in the "sidechain" to the parent chain. The advantage to centralized sidechains, however, seems to be that if the centralized operator misbehaves, the users do not lose their holdings, but the operator has to exit. And the advantage with respect to LN is that, like in any sidechain, anyone can use the sidechain without having to do a transaction from the main chain.
At a first glance. it looks like a nice addition to LN - while it's not completely decentralized, it is superior to traditional centralized sidechains (like Elements or Rootstock) and also to totally centralized operators (like Coinbase). It looks also a little bit similar to Peter Todd's "treechain" idea.
Two layman questions: 1) Is the approach compatible with Bitcoin's UTXO-based structure? It looks that the paper talks about an "account-based chain" like NXT or Ethereum. 2) Won't the "checkpoints" sent by the Nocust operators occupy lots of blockchain space if there are many users?
|