Sunday Survey: BIP300 soft fork scenario \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Sunday Survey: BIP300 soft fork scenario

5742 sats \ 28 comments \ @jimmysong 3 Sep 2023 bitcoin

A soft fork for BIP300 comes out, what software do you run for your node?

Note if you run whatever is on there now, you would let proof-of-work determine which chain you follow.

Whatever is on there now37.1%

BIP300 software10.0%

URSF software37.1%

I don't run a node15.7%

70 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

121 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Sep 2023

You don't push a change to Bitcoin without consensus. URSF

80 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet 3 Sep 2023

I don't know if you realize this but a URSF is also a change to bitcoin without consensus

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 5 Sep 2023

That is a very "technically" gotcha. It is not changing my answer either.

100 sats \ 10 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

At this point it would be awesome is some opponent of DCs articulates simple and clear scenario(s) what could go wrong for DC and non-DC users. It is shameful that most (all?) critique boils down to unknown unknowns. That is ultra conservative approach that has more risks than benefits in competitive market environment. I am pro-DC because i have not seen such arguments. I am happy to change my position if there is a clear risk.

121 sats \ 6 replies \ @badabing 4 Sep 2023

Your entire reasoning is backwards and against bitcoin ethos. You should be against any change as long as you haven't seen any good arguments pro. Bitcoin isn't broken and doesn't need any fixing.

"Competitive market environment". You talk like an ETH talking head. Bitcoin is money. Almost all other coins (except Monero) are corporate tokens.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet 4 Sep 2023

Bitcoin isn't broken and doesn't need any fixing

Counterpoint: bitcoin isn't perfect and could use improving

There are more reasons to do an upgrade than "the current version is broken"

If better sidechains improve bitcoin then I want that

Because I want bitcoin to be the best money

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

Did Bitcoin need Taproot? Did it need SegWit?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @badabing 4 Sep 2023

So that's your argument ? It needed those so it must need DC ?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

Nope, you are using this “purity” argument and i am showing you that you are using different standards for recent changes so you have no historical precedence. When it comes to importance DC proponents see that as change that could actually reduce number of future updates so it is leaning more of your conservative approach to upgrade policy.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @badabing 4 Sep 2023

Every change has come with unforeseen consequences, leading many to become more and more conservative. Past changes have increased conservatism in Bitcoin.

I also did not say whether Bitcoin needed Taproot/SegWit or not. You are saying it did, not me.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

I am just asking. I think it is great those made it through. Certainly it helped LN a lot. Problem i see is that you approach Bitcoin as something that was given by god and people will therefor automatically adopt it. No, people will adopt something that supports their usecases and it is up to us (people involved in the process) to steer it toward values of decentralization, scarcity, …

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 4 Sep 2023

Bitcoin competes for the status of money not despite but because it doesn't constantly implement slurges and purges and merges. For Bitcoin to compete as money, it has to remain boring, stable and not change constantly. Who would put his life savings in a constantly changing, unpredictable protocol?

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 4 Sep 2023

No one needs to prove that something could go wrong. The onus is on the proponents to prove nothing could go wrong.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

Do you realized that that is not possible, right? Proving the negative. Anyway, if something goes wrong we can activate URSF at that very moment.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 4 Sep 2023

In the end, i don't mind BIP changes, as long as they are SOFT-forks, and don't affect Bitcoin whole security model. If it's 101% safe, i don't mind.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 4 Sep 2023

If Drivechain is a good idea there wouldnt be any doubt?

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @0207a984de 3 Sep 2023

I asked ChatGPT some questions about BIP300:

============================ Q:

Let's pretend that we create a sidechain on Bitcoin using BIP300, and this sidechain is an identical instance of the Bitcoin protocol itself except starting with a completely new block history from block 0. This new sidechain will need to record transactions. Wouldn't the sidechain begin to grow in size just like the original Bitcoin chain, and thus, if we're wanting to maintain both chains, the node would grow to be double the size requirements as compared to just running one?

Yes, if a sidechain created using BIP 300 is an identical instance of the Bitcoin protocol with its own block history, it would indeed grow in size, and running both the main Bitcoin blockchain and the sidechain on a single node would require more storage space compared to running just one of them.

In such a scenario, each chain (the main Bitcoin chain and the sidechain) would maintain its own separate blockchain with its transaction history, blocks, and associated data. Both chains would continue to grow over time as new transactions are added to their respective ledgers.

Therefore, if you wanted to maintain both chains and run a node that supports both the main Bitcoin chain and the sidechain, you would need storage capacity for both blockchains. The combined storage requirements would be approximately double the size of running just one chain.

It's important to note that the specific storage requirements would depend on factors such as the frequency and volume of transactions on each chain and any additional data that the sidechain may store. As a result, the actual storage needs for running both chains may vary over time.

Additionally, running a node for a sidechain, especially one that is designed to be a near-identical instance of the Bitcoin protocol, would involve synchronization with both the Bitcoin network and the sidechain network, which can have its own resource and bandwidth requirements. Properly maintaining and syncing multiple blockchains can be resource-intensive.

============================

That sounds like BCash with extra steps.

Are we expecting nodes to support all sidechains? My node is already stretched super thin on resources. The UTXO set is growing so fast, mempool is big, and disk space is a never-ending concern.

And if we're NOT expecting nodes to support all sidechains, then what's the point of having this on Bitcoin? Like, it seems simpler to just let the resources be used separately as it's own altcoin or hard-fork.

If we're talking about a sidechain like a copy of zcash or Monero, since they use a different hashing algorithm, we couldn't use merged mining right? Would they be converted to Scrypt? If not, then again, miner resources couldn't be recycled and then what's the point? Again, it seems simpler to just use an altcoin or hard-fork.

I mean, what is Bitcoin if it's not the collection of it's protocol, nodes, and mining power? If nodes and mining power can't be leveraged, and instead, have to be sacrificed to support different sidechains, what do we end up with? It seems like a fractured architecture - but I've only briefly skimmed this BIP300 stuff so far.

529 sats \ 7 replies \ @inverselarp 3 Sep 2023

No, you dont need to care about any sidechains with your Bitcoin node. You will need extra node only for sidechain you use (if any).

10 sats \ 6 replies \ @0207a984de 3 Sep 2023

How is that different from me running an altcoin node?

Are we just talking about eliminating the need for crypto-exchanges to help me convert BTC into some altcoin? I thought atomic swaps could help make that secure?

The node is different, mining is different, resources are different, everything is different for the sidechain.

I'm not exactly sure why it needs to be "hooked up" to Bitcoin if I can't even use it automatically, and I have to run a whole bunch of different stuff to benefit.

804 sats \ 5 replies \ @inverselarp 3 Sep 2023

Atomic swaps are for p2p. Trustless sidechain is more like wbtc without bitgo.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @0207a984de 3 Sep 2023

But fundamentally, I would need to "move" coins that are on-chain to coins that are on the side-chain right? Otherwise, I could double-spend.

But if I need to move coins, then how does anyone benefit from having it linked to Bitcoin? What are we going to name these sidechain coins? DC-Monero?

Each sidechain would have coins that have a different exchange value than pure on-chain BTC right? Or would it be more like Lightning where the value is the same because ultimately every sidechain transaction can be settled on-chain, or in this case, on-parent-chain?

529 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 3 Sep 2023

Correct you will move them. Benefits are that it is trustless. If you want to get Monero because of it’s anonymity features you need to sell Bitcoin and buy Monero (on likely kyc exchange). With DC you dont have to. You dont even need to have free floating token and use 1:1 peg (like LBTC). Benefits for all other Bitcoin users are more fees for miners.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 3 Sep 2023

then how does anyone benefit from having it linked to Bitcoin

you're leveraging the most secure computer network ever created

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0207a984de 4 Sep 2023

I didn't understand how it was leveraged, because once the coins were moved to the sidechain, if the sidechain had a crappy hashrate I thought it could just be attacked like any low hashrate altcoin

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 4 Sep 2023

That is correct, crappy sidechain will be crappy. Bitcoin wont help there.

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 4 Sep 2023

"disk space is a never-ending concern"

Disk space is the least concern. HDD/SSD are becoming rapidly bigger & cheaper. 4 TeraByte SSD is 200'ish Euros

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 3 Sep 2023

really depends on the details, but likely a URSF

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fredosha 3 Sep 2023

The BIP300 soft fork is a proposal that has sparked passionate debates within the Bitcoin community. Here are some key points about the BIP300 soft fork:

BIP300, short for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 300, suggests a mechanism for hashrate escrows. This mechanism involves locking up Bitcoin as a form of assurance or collateral.
The purpose of the BIP300 soft fork is to address the challenge of achieving full consensus on every change in the Bitcoin network. It aims to protect users from bad developers and bad software.
Some proponents of the BIP300 soft fork argue that it can enhance the security and stability of the Bitcoin network by introducing a mechanism for miners to commit their hashrate.
However, not everyone agrees with implementing the BIP300 proposal via a soft fork. Critics argue that such a change could radically alter the Bitcoin network and its usage.
It is important to note that the BIP300 soft fork is still being debated within the Bitcoin community. The decision to implement it or not will depend on developer consensus and the overall consensus of the Bitcoin ecosystem.