On 2/27/2022 11:59 AM, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
@Paul
> I think largeblocksidechainsshould be reconsidered:
> * They are not a blocksize increase.
This is short sighted. They would absolutely be a blocksize increase
for those following a large block sidechain. While sure, it wouldn't
affect bitcoin users who don't follow that sidechain, its misleading
to call it "not a blocksize increase" for everyone.
Your larger explanation is entirely correct.
Many of the important anti-largeblock arguments are not relevant to the
largeblock sidechain strategy, but some of them still are.
My concern is that people will jump to conclusions, and use the old 2015 arguments
against "a blocksize increase" against this idea.
Hence my small bullet point.
> * They allow users to be different. Some can pay more (for more
decentralization), some less (for less decentralization).
> gambling the entire future of BTC, on the premise that strong
decentralization will always be needed at all points in time.
Decentralization isn't just something where more is more valuable and less is
less valuable. Decentralization is either enough to stop a class of attack or
its not. Its pretty binary. If the decentralization is not enough, it would be
a pretty huge catastrophe for those involved. Its pretty clear that making the
blocksize eg 10 times larger is a poor design choice. So advocating for such a
thing on a sidechain is just as bad as advocating for it on an altcoin.
Even if people only put a couple satoshis in such a sidechain at a time, and
don't feel the loss very much, the *world* would feel the loss. Eg if everyone
had $1 in such a system, and someone stole it all, it would be a theft of
billions of dollars. The fact that no individual would feel much pain would
make it not much less harmful to society.
I believe that you have missed my point. Let me try to explain it in more
detail.
First, imagine a magic spell is cast, which 100% prevents the "class of attack"
which you mention. In that situation, all of the work that BTC does to remain
decentralized, is a pure burden with absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Rational users
will then become indifferent to centralization. Since decentralization has tradeoffs,
users will tend to be drawn towards 'crypto' projects that have very low decentralization.
Next, imagine that the spell is lifted, and the attacks start. Users will be,
of course, drawn back towards BTC, and they will appreciate it for its
decentralization.
So what's the problem? Well, I believe that money has very strong network effects. Therefore, I believe that
"user inertia" will be much stronger than usual. At a certain critical mass it may be
insurmountable. So, at certain points along the spectrum, users will "clump up" and get
"stuck".
Thus, we may "clump" on a chain that is not the most decentralized one. And an adversary
can use this to their advantage. They can "grow" the centralized chain at first, to help
it, and help ensure that they do not have to deal with the most decentralized chain.
This entire issue is avoided completely, if all the chains --decentralized and
centralized-- and in the same monetary unit. Then, the monetary network effects
never interfere, and the decentralized chain is always guaranteed to exist.
As for the phrase " Its pretty clear that making the blocksize eg 10 times larger is
a poor design choice" I think this entire way of reasoning about the blocksize, is
one that only applies to a non-sidechain world.
In contrast, in a world where many chains can be created, it does not matter what Some
Guy thinks is "pretty clear". The only thing that matters is that people can
try things out, are rewarded for successes, and are punished for mistakes.
So: if someone makes a largeblock sidechain, and the design is bad, the chain
fails, and their reputation suffers.
In my way-of-reasoning, someone is actually in the wrong, if they proactively
censor an experiment of any type. If a creator is willing to stand behind
something, then it should be tried.
In fact, it is often best for everyone (especially the end user), if a creator keeps
their ideas secret (from the "peer review" community). That way they can at
least get credit/glory. The soon-to-be-successful experiments of tomorrow, should be
incomprehensible to the experts of today. That's what makes them innovations.
Finally, to me it makes no difference if users have their funds stolen from a
centralized Solana contract (because there is only one full node which the
operator resets), or from a bip300 centralized bit-Solana sidechain (for the
same reason). I don't see why the tears shed would be any different.
> We can learn from past mistakes -- when a new largeblock sidechain is needed,
we can make a new one from scratch, using everything we know.
If there's some design principles that *allow* for safely increasing the blocksize
substantially like that, then I'd advocate for it in bitcoin. But the goal of sidechains
should not be "shoot from the hip and after everyone on that sidechain gets burned
we'll have learned valuable lessons". That's not how engineering works. That's akin
to wreckless human experimentation.
Again, we perhaps have a fundamental disagreement on this point.
In 2008 a FED chairman might have said to Satoshi, "If there were design principles
that *allowed* for private, digital, bearer-instrument, payments, then of course I'd
advocate for it here at the FED. But the goal of bitcoin should not be 'shoot from the
hip ...'. That's not how engineering works. That's akin to wreckless human
experimentation."
I think that the most dangerous experiment of all, is to adopt the 'reckless'
policy of suppressing creativity.
If instead you said something like, "If a 10x blocksize chain is ever demonstrated
to have property XYZ, then I will repent my error by putting my own children to
death", then the audience would at least have some idea of your confidence and
sincerity. But, again, a FED chairman could say exactly that, about Bitcoin. And they
would still have been wrong. And even if they were right (on a fluke) they would still
have been wrong to prevent the idea from being tried.
Censorship (the suppression of ideas, merely because you disagree with them) is
not only immoral, on this issue it is also largely pointless. Today, a
Bitcoiner can sell their BTC for Solana, or BSV, and there is nothing anyone
here can do about it. Altcoin Solana vs bip300 bit-Solana, would seem to be
equivalently reckless to me. So, your implicit advice (of bureaucracy-based
sidechain drop/add), seems to fail to meet your own criterion (of preventing
human recklessness). And it certainly does other bad things for no reason
(pumps an altcoin, decreases btc fee revenues /hashrate, etc).
Paul
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
