Should Drivechains Come to Bitcoin? With Paul Sztorc

 
 

Where to find the show

Download Episode MP3 File
The file will open in a new window. Click down arrow to download the file.

“I don’t think we’ll ever agree on what you might call meta consensus, like what the blockchain should contain. I think people will probably continue to disagree about that, forever. And I think that sidechain is a sort of an escape valve.”
— Paul Sztorc

SHOW DESCRIPTION

Paul Sztorc is an independent Bitcoin researcher. In this interview, we discuss drivechains, his 2015 proposal that’s the focus of BiP 300 and 301. Drivechains facilitate sidechains on Bitcoin, providing a bridge to new coins. The aim is to enable developer creativity atop Bitcoin.

- - - -

In October 2014 Adam Back and other prominent Bitcoin developers introduced the concept of sidechains to Bitcoin’s infrastructure. In the paper, they stated “We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own.”

Paul Sztorc then developed a proposal for a version of sidechains in 2015 that were linked to Bitcoin’s mainchain. This proposal would improve on the original sidechain idea in several ways: it did not require independent miners for the sidechains, and further, it did not require a hard-fork of Bitcoin.

A principle driver was to enable developers to create innovations within Bitcoin, outside of the need to develop separate token ecosystems. Various features, including a 1:1 peg, and a delayed redemption period, were designed to mitigate the incentive to create new alternative tokens for purely selfish financial reasons, whilst facilitating an ecosystem for innovation.

In short, it was designed to remove the marketplace for altcoins altogether, allowing Bitcoin to foster experimentation. And yet, whilst being the basis for two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, drivechains are still yet to be adopted by the community. This is perhaps not a surprise given Bitcoin’s focus on dependability and reasonable concerns about impinging on Bitcoin’s robust security.

But, are these concerns valid?

Of course, the idea that we could retain a fixed monetary supply on a secure base layer, and at the same time have the freedom to experiment with new privacy technologies and programmability seems like the best of both worlds. The question remains why this strategy has not yet been broadly supported and adopted by the network. The “work slowly and build things” philosophy in Bitcoin is a core pillar of the Bitcoin value proposition as a reliable monetary protocol. But can drivechains be a way of enabling Bitcoin to become the gravitational centre for developers? Or, do Drivechains pose an existential choice between security and progress?

TIMESTAMPS

00:04:25: Introductions
00:07:06: Drivechain compared to Liquid
00:15:10: Drivechain thesis
00:28:15: A drivechain example, and how it works
00:45:12: Security for the drivechain, and merged mining
00:52:24: Drivechains will filter out the shitcoins
00:56:12: Criticisms of drivechain
01:03:40: Trusting the drivechain developers
01:06:51: What would entice development on drivechain
01:16:08: Pushback against drivechain
01:23:39: The morality of altcoins on sidechains
01:26:28: Paul's background
01:27:55: Final comments

 

SUPPORT THE SHOW

If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following:

If you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.

SPONSORS

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SHOW NOTES

Connect with Paul:

Mentioned in the interview:

Other Relevant WBD Podcasts:

PodcastPeter McCormack