The [security model](http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security) is comparable to Bitcoin's. Bitcoin protects all of the transactions over a recent period of time. Drivechain protects only a subset of these transactions, but it does so over a much longer period of time.
@ -17,7 +19,6 @@ A **more important point is this**: the risk-reward decision is one which should
But don't try to decide on behalf of other people! If each individual user is free to sell his/her BTC in exchange for an Altcoin (or for fiat), we can hardly deny users the opportunity to move *their money* between two sidechains.
### What negative impact could sidechains have on the mainchain (ie, Bitcoin Core)?
There are none, actually.
@ -28,9 +29,7 @@ This means that the sidechains are [completely firewalled](http://www.truthcoin.
In fact, because Drivechain is asymmetric (in that the child sidechain is subordinate to the parent mainchain), the mainchains cannot be harmed even by the *success* of their sidechains. Since Bitcoin Core would be the patriarch of this family of sidechains, Core would be the safest chain of them all.
### What kind of sidechain projects can we expect?
Please navigate to the [sidechain projects](http://www.drivechain.info/projects/index.html) section.
## Implementation
### When will be able to use Drivechain? What's your strategy for getting it into Bitcoin and activated?
@ -49,3 +48,37 @@ The "blind merged mining" technology has not been developed. It will take an unk
I am worried about bugs! However, Drivechain's bugs can (probably) be found and fixed "in the wild". Bitcoin's design (particularly, the soft fork model), prevents any bugs in this software from affecting version that don't have Drivechain. This limits the potential damage tremendously (if not completely).
Secondly, software developers are often overworked, and can't prioritize their scarce review-time. Therefore, sadly, the projects that get the most attention are often those that "charge the mound", so to speak.
### Does Drivechain require SegWit?
No.
They are similar -- SegWit requires miners to support a new block structure, and to enforce [new rules for a new address types (P2WPKH, P2WSH)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki). Sidechains also require miners to support a new block structure (one which contains a "withdrawal-vote-database" of minimial size"), and to enforce new rules for a new address type. But the two are requirements are entirely independent of each other. You could have one, the other, both, or none.
However, the two systems could work together. Lightning Network allows instant/fully-reliable transactions *across sidechains*, which would be a nice feature to have.
## Other
### What kind of sidechain projects can we expect?
Please navigate to the [sidechain projects](http://www.drivechain.info/projects/index.html) section.
### Can sidechains really help with Scaling?
I believe that sidechains can solve the *scaling contention*, precisely **because** sidechains do *not* solve scaling itself.
Let me explain.
We might define "resources needed" as X, and "production output" as Y. Then, everyone would want r = Y/X to always be as high as possible.
In Bitcoin's case, the "resources needed" are the node costs -- specifically, the infamous **blocksize**. The "production output" is the network's ability to perform as advertised (as P2P e-cash), specifically the **transactions per second**.
If we define "scalability" as r (in other words, if we define scalability as "transactions per second" divided by "blocksize"), then there is no controversy. Everyone wants to r to be as high as possible. Everyone wants the most scalability.
However, my belief is that the true "contention" is about *choosing the right X*. Even if r were very high (and even if we doubled r, or multiplied it by a factor of 100), there would still be disagreements over X. Some would feel that X is too small, others would feel that X is too large.
This may explain why debates over scalability still persist, despite the surprising discovery of the Lightning Network, which multiplies r by a large factor.
Sidechains are different, in that they allow people to "choose their own X". This does not (directly) impact r, but it should eliminate most of the controversy.
(Interestingly, sidechains may also indirectly impact r, by allowing for [synergy between two chains](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzg_u9gHc5Q&t=6575s), or by exploiting [a] UTXO commitments, [b] the SC security model, and [c] the mainchain's management of the 21 M limit, to allow sidechains to simply discard old blocks.)
Paul Sztorc
8 years ago