Abstract
Since the introduction of Bitcoin[Nak09] in 2009, and the multiple computer science
and electronic cash innovations it brought, there has been great interest in the potential of
decentralised cryptocurrencies. At the same time, implementation changes to the consensuscritical
parts of Bitcoin must necessarily be handled very conservatively (traduction pas touche a blocksize). As a result, Bitcoin has
greater difficulty than other Internet protocols in adapting to new demands and accommodating
new innovation.
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger
assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains (traduction des bitcoins qui bougent hors de la blockchain). This gives users access to new and
innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s
currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding
the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains
are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered. Despite bidirectional
transferability between Bitcoin and pegged sidechains, they are isolated: in the case of a
cryptographic break (or malicious design) in a sidechain, the damage is entirely confined to
the sidechain itself.
This paper lays out pegged sidechains, their implementation requirements, and the work
needed to fully benefit from the future of interconnected blockchains.
https://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfDans la section introduction ils font référence a blocksize en insinuant qu'il vaut mieux pas trop y toucher...
J'ai pas encore tout lu car il est moins digeste que le papier de satoshi.
Ma conclusion, Oui ils veulent faire du offchain, oui ils ont besoin de limiter les transactions sur la blockchain. C'est presque explicite dans leur whitepaper quand même!
Edit: en relisant le post de pieter avec ce que je comprend du white paper on voit bien ou il veut en venir
So no, sidechains are not a direct (mais indirectement?) means for solving any of the scaling problems Bitcoin has. What they offer is a mechanism for easier experimentation, so that new technology can be built and tested without needing to introduce a new currency first (with the related speculative and network effect problems). That experimentation could eventually lead us to discover mechanisms for better scaling, or for more scalability/security tradeoffs (see for example the Witness Segregation that Elements Alpha has).
Yep aucun problème langue de bois niveau ++
EDIT 2 :
Là on touche le ponpon
Similarly, there are trade-offs between security and cost. Bitcoin stores every transaction in
its history with the same level of irreversibility. This is expensive to maintain and may not be
appropriate for low value or low-risk transactions (e.g. where all parties already have shared
legal infrastructure in place to handle fraud).
These trade-offs should be made for each transaction, as transactions vary widely in value
and risk profile.
A mettre en perspective avec L'introduction du whitepaper de Satoshi....