Drivechain – Sidechain Privatization (1/5) – Intro, Problem, and Outline
hi everyone my name is Paul storks this
presentation is about Drive chain which is a proposal for a two-way peg enabling Bitcoin side
chains side chains are great for a lot of reasons you'll see the block logo in the in the corner of
the presentation because I work for block now and Jeff gave me a lot of time to work on this so
I thought it was least I could do let's put the little logo everywhere so just ignore it if you
don't like that kind of thing this presentation is gonna be about increasing bitcoins ability
to do things so in particular I'm gonna answer one question that I get a lot from the technical
community which is why does my design involve the Bitcoin miners so much that's mostly what this is
gonna be about so I'm just these you don't need to be you don't need to like read this or anything
this is just I'm just mentioning that this is Greg Maxwell Bitcoin genius and he is he is picked
up on this that there's a more tightly coupled model where some miners are required to verify
the side chain that's true in addition I have some comments from Bitcoin wizards where a lot of
people hang out and this gentleman mr.
H is saying that he's not sure that this manual corroboration
on the part of the miners of the chain fidelity or integrity is a starter there the I'm gonna argue
it's actually quite the reverse if you don't have something like this around that's a non-starter
but we'll get into that so in general the long and short of it is that people do not want the miners
to have control over which side chains are there or not there but I do and I would like to explain
why my view might be so different from views that are commonly expressed in the technical community
so here it is in one slide and I'm gonna walk you through this slide this represents the idea of
Bitcoin with five side chains one two three four five so over here I have this row I have like
entities this would be like the Bitcoin miners so everyone who does double 2:56 mining over here
we got everyone who does mining and sha-3 this is fictional I just made this up I know there are
alt coins that use this though and then over here we have random other miners they use md5 I
just again this is made up this is just to show that these are three different groups of people or
at least three different accounting groups and so each of these three groups is represented by this
color here the Bitcoin miners have two side chains these little arrows and these little cylinders
over here this group has one Bitcoin side chain just this guy these people have two over here
okay so that's that's kind of the setup these are the entities these are the rewards that each
entity gets per block that they mined so over here of course the Bitcoin miners get a coinbase
transaction which is currently 25 bitcoins but we have two twelve and a half bitcoins per block
and they also get the transaction fees from the Bitcoin network presumably they also get either
transaction fees or some other kind of payment some kind from their side chains and presumably
these miners also get some kind of payment from their side chains so these are little arrows to
represent the flow of money in and out of what's going on over here so one single slide it's going
to be a problem if what these guys here in red the side chains that are mined by the same people and
also by other people these side chains may affect the value of all of this to this entity and if
what they are doing is going to affect these people they should have some kind of say in what
goes on and and by effect I mean that they might affect the purchasing power of these you know
the the exchange rate of these coins they might become less or more valuable but I also mean that
it might affect just the total quantity of stuff received by each entity so that's the entire point
of this presentation is that these people should get a say in stuff that can ruin their line of
business and so the problem to just make it very clear is that there's this expectation in my view
an incorrect expectation that these contracts are additive and then you can just take one and add Y
and you end up with what you had before plus y and then you can take that and you can add X to it and
you end up with what you had before plus X so this is the expectation so you take something you add
y dedd X you end up with something that's y and X and I think that's a little naive the reality
is more ecological than that you can add Y and you can add X and then something can happen and Y
and X can actually cancel each other out and I'll explain more about that later so here are some
metaphors for this problem so one metaphor is an invasive species we'll be explaining that
in a little while but this is a zebra mussel they used to live in this tiny Russian lake or
something but now they've spread throughout the entire Great Lakes region of the United States
I mean it's good for the zebra mussel but it's bad for a human being so you have to decide what
you care about and you can take this concept to an extreme this idea of a grey goo someone builds
a tiny little a very small assembler that copies itself and since it's so small and it's so good
at copying and it more or less eats anything by design this is a totally fictional this is a
fictional construction but in theory once you build this thing it just takes over the world in a
few hours and everyone's dead and there's nothing there's nothing alive on the planet except for
these things so again good for them but you have to be mindful of what you're introducing to an
environment before I move on to this spam example let me just explain that what it is is this you
have a you have this this concept of a finite shared resource so here there's the earth and and
we need food to survive so if either we're eating the food or the grey goo is eating it and or where
the grey goo is eating us eventually so over over here it's a literal atmosphere but here it's an
atmosphere for conversation because you really can't listen to four or five conversations at once
just noise and eventually if you try to listen to a hundred conversations at once you can't really
hear any of them it's just really annoying it consumes this you're the scarce environment of
sound and these scarce environment of attention and your brain and so this is why even stuff like
4chan which is like Internet Anarchy is moderated obsessively for being stuff that's being on topic
so if you add it all together you get this kind of 1984's concept that censorship is expression
if you want to live in a world that has things like Mozart and symphonies and architecture
and computers you're going to have to censor the gray goo character you cannot have a little of
everything so that's the metaphor for the problem so restated we want smart contracts that's what
we all want right or so I thought and what we want is a contract that enforces itself we don't need
anyone to do anything right but even though that was obvious what's not obvious is that see this
positive thing is part of the obvious it's obvious that you don't want it to be the case that someone
has to approve the contract but what isn't obvious is that this permission could be negative you
would you we don't want to be in a position where there are a hundred people in a room and if any
one of those hundred people say no the contract dies it's much worse than the original position
which is that you needed to go to person number eight for approval now any of the 100 people can
interfere with the contract which is exactly what we don't want so that's just a restatement we
don't want here's another Restatement to make it just clear about what I'm complaining about if
we want to have real smart contracts we can't have permissionless implementation you can innovate
all you want you can code up something on your own computer and you can test it out and you
can argue for it you can run it on your own computer you can get other people to run it but
we don't want to be in a situation where anyone could just run anything on the contracts that we
already have which is why I've set up this idea of a barrier which is controlled by the miners which
is a good thing and not a bad thing and I'm gonna explain I'm gonna try to explain why okay what
I'm saying is do all the R&D you want in the turing-complete C++ compiler I mean I couldn't
care less but if you want to bring it into the environment you're gonna need to pass some barrier
okay so over here on the Left we have a good set up or someone builds the alarm clock and brings it
over to Bitcoin as a Bitcoin contract if the alarm clock for those of you don't know it basically
like starts sending away your money if you don't get out of bed that's the in theory it's kind of
mostly a joke but it's a kind of funny idea so and then over here someone has allowed this would be
sort of like a rootstock or an etherium if they've allowed something across the barrier that that
enables new contracts in here this is a bad setup and we're gonna get into why that's bad right now
so here's the talk outline it's gonna be in three parts I've got two examples of cannibalism of the
smart contracts harming each other and destroying each other which is this over here one of
those is going to be the destruction of the oracle contracts which are in my view the entire
really the entire point 80% to 90% of the entire value-add smart contracts at all this second
example is sort of for fun it's this one is quite serious and very legitimate in imminent threat
to something important this one is just kind of me pushing the limits of turing completeness in
particular and I'm gonna steal bitcoins without knowing that person's private key and so it's it's
gonna be quite a performance and it's a little outlandish but it's for demonstration purposes
only so and then the second part will be some theory on why you didn't even want permissionless
implementation actually because there's nothing you really get out of it in fact I'm gonna argue
that if you're a Bitcoin of sort of opposites of each other in a major important way and then
thirdly it's going to get very theoretical where I'm gonna say that Bitcoin as well as all
blockchain projects is a subset of the field of game theory or not the fields of computer science
it's no more computer science than video poker is computer science in my view and I'm gonna try
to explain why I think that that matters for this concept of permissionless yes so it probably
pretty interesting my guess is it'll end up going on for a while and so just shut the presentation
on officers you you can't handle it anymore
FREE traffic, Autoresponder, Page Builder, Popup Creator, Link Tracker, and to Make Money Now!
