Sidechain as a solution to the dispute about the size of the bitcoin block

Initially, the technology of side chains (sidechains) was considered as an experimental material for the Bitcoin network, and now this technology has become a possible solution to the protracted dispute about the scaling of the first crypto currency. Apparently, the opinion of the members of the crypto-currency community about the Saitcheans is gradually changing.

The idea behind the sidekens is to ensure that Bitcoin is tied to a lot of coins with different rules. For example, one of the members of the site can have MimbleWimble privacy, and the other can provide a large (or small) block size.

It is this last property that attracted the attention of the community to the people of the neighborhood, turning them into a solution to the Bitcoin block size problem. According to some participants, theoretically this idea could satisfy many appetites.

It is worth noting that the essence of the solution is not that the side-people achieve greater bandwidth, says Bloq economist Paul Sztorc, who developed the sidechain called Drivechain. With the introduction of this model, participants have the option of choosing - they can either move their bitcoins to the sidechain with a larger block size (say 2MB), or remain part of the Bitcoin network.

Sidechain or expansion?

On the other hand, a lot of other solutions to the problem of block size have recently been proposed, which are worthy of competition to the seidcheans. For example, the Purse startup recently published the concept of "extension blocks" all with the same goal - to give users the choice of block size.

Nevertheless, some developers, including the head of Blockstream, Adam Back (Adam Back), believe that the expansion blocks can reduce the security of users.

It is for this reason that the Storch Drivechain, in which the hypothetically occurring blockbuster can not negatively affect what is happening in other blockboys, has been approved by developers skeptical of other proposals.

Some developers believe that the main problem is not in the confrontation of technology, but in which of the technologies is better suited for a particular application.

"I see several potential usage scenarios for expansion units, for example, support for MimbleWimble," says developer James Hilliard, "but in general, the side-people seem to me to be the best security solution."

There are also opinions that Drivechain (and other types of sidecynes relying on miners) may not be able to work at full strength in the current environment, where the entire hashreit is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people.

Other developers consider the situation depending on various circumstances.

"In general, [Drivechain] is a good idea; But details are important here, "says Bitcoin Core team member Luke Dashjr.

Friction around Segwit2x

However, we return to the question of scaling. In particular, Stortz considers Drivechain to be the best solution, rather than the recent Digital Currency Group (DCG) proposal called Segwit2x, adopted as the basis for the New York agreement.

Recall, this proposal has secured considerable support from crypto-currency companies and miners. SegWit2x combines two technologies: an optimization called SegWit and an increase in Bitcoin's block size in six months.

Nevertheless, Storz, like several other developers, is wary of this proposal. To scale the block size to 2 MB, SegWit2x requires a hard disk. Not everyone in the ecosystem agrees with this, in part because this increases the amount of data that users need to store. In addition, the update can lead to a network split.

Saidcheyny does not require a hard-core. Users can change the side-user functions to the desired block size, because some consider the increase to 2MB is too small.

Problem of choice

Some members of the Bitcoin community believe that the voluntary development team, once formed around Bitcoin Core, has become a monopoly, and believe that the group blocks all ideas from the outside.

According to Storz, Drivechain should alleviate both of these undesirable problems, as users will have a chance to choose exactly what they want, and different development teams can be formed around different stakeholders.

Stortz says that Drivechain can be used within the same six-month period as DCG's offer, even if it requires Bitcoin's soft-touch. Anyway, as in the case with most other proposals to improve Bitcoin's code, the community has to wait and watch.