Ruben Somsen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-08-21 🗒️ Summary of this message: Ryan envisions ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-08-21
🗒️ Summary of this message: Ryan envisions a system where there is no cryptographic proof involved in validating transactions, which contradicts the idea of fraud proof. This reliance on trusted entities and the ability to choose different sets of validators could lead to consensus failures. Ruben raises concerns about data availability and the potential issues it may cause.
📝 Original message:
Hi Ryan,
>As I envision it, there is no cryptographic proof involved at all.
That seems to directly contradict your previous message where you stated
"[t]hey transmit invalid transactions or blocks". This transmission you
alluded to is basically a (non-optimized) fraud proof, and it assumes that
this data is actually available (unsafe assumption).
If you envision that this step is not actually needed, then users are
essentially never validating and merely relying on a set of trusted
entities. Furthermore, the idea that everyone can just pick their own set
of validators is antithetical to consensus. What if my set of validators
disagrees with your set of validators? Now one of us will reject the
Bitcoin block with the peg-out while the other will not, causing sidechain
consensus failure to directly affect the mainchain.
Cheers,
Ruben
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 8:58 PM <ryan at breen.xyz> wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback, Ruben. I have a question.
>
> Could you please clarify what qualifies as a fraud proof in this concept?
> As I envision it, there is no cryptographic proof involved at all.
>
> In the context of a Sentinel chain, the sidechain's full nodes monitor
> Bitcoin mempools and blocks for withdrawals that violate the rules of the
> sidechain's consensus (such as thefts or incorrect balances). When the
> sidechain's full nodes detect an invalid withdrawal on Bitcoin, they
> publish a signed attestation to a public broadcast network (Nostr in this
> case). Participating Bitcoin full nodes and miners monitor the network for
> these attestations and subsequently reject the offending transactions. The
> process doesn't involve the presentation of proof because it's a
> distributed trust relationship.
>
> While Bitcoin full nodes could decide to operate their own sidechain
> nodes, we aim not to make this a requirement (addressing the long-standing
> sidechain dilemma). Bitcoin full nodes and miners wishing to participate
> can instead choose a distributed trust network comprising operators of
> sidechain full nodes that they trust. For instance, if they decide to
> follow 100 well-respected sidechain node operators, they might collectively
> agree that if 75 of them issue an attestation indicating that a transaction
> violates sidechain withdrawal rules, then that transaction should be deemed
> invalid by their node. Withdrawals are assumed valid if no public
> attestations are present.
>
> Furthermore, I'm uncertain about what potential data availability issue
> that might arise from this. Since there are no alterations to Bitcoin
> Core's validation logic, when a full node operator starts a new node from
> the genesis block, they will validate the proof of work of the longest
> chain and remain blissfully unaware that the transactions within the blocks
> are even associated with a sidechain.
>
> On Aug 19, 2023, at 10:35 AM, Ruben Somsen <rsomsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write a proposal. As is often the case,
> these ideas aren't actually as novel as you might think. What you describe
> here is known as "fraud proofs". The crucial problem it doesn't address is
> "data availability".
>
> The general idea behind fraud proofs is that if you commit to every
> computational step (note Bitcoin currently doesn't, but could), anyone can
> succinctly reveal erroneous steps (e.g. 1+1=3), thus convincing everyone
> the state transition (i.e. block) is invalid. This works if a bunch of
> people have all the data and are willing to construct and spread the fraud
> proofs, but what if nobody has the data?
>
> When someone claims data is unavailable, the only way to verify this claim
> is by downloading the data. You can't just ban this peer for false claims
> either, since the data might have actually been unavailable when the claim
> was made but then became available. In essence this means malicious peers
> can cause you to download all data, meaning you effectively haven't saved
> any bandwidth.
>
> It should be noted that fraud proofs could still reduce the need for
> computation (i.e. you download all data, but only verify the parts for
> which you receive fraud notifications), so it can still provide some form
> of scaling.
>
> As a bit of history, fraud proofs were actually briefly considered for
> inclusion into segwit, but were abandoned due to the data availability
> issue:
> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#update-2016-10-19
>
> And finally, there is a way to address the data availability issue, which
> I describe here (PoW fraud proofs/softchains, though note I am currently of
> the opinion it's better used for low-bandwidth mainchain nodes instead of
> for sidechains):
> https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/7ecf7f13dc2496aa7eed8815a02f13d1
>
> In theory you can also do data availability sampling through the use of
> erasure codes, but that gets very complex and brittle.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruben
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 4:29 PM Ryan Breen via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Recent discussions on social media regarding drivechains have prompted me
>> to consider the implementation of a two-way sidechain peg within the
>> Bitcoin protocol. I would like to propose what I believe may be a novel
>> solution to this issue.
>>
>> I have previously written about here on my blog:
>> https://ursus.camp/bitcoin/2023/08/10/sidechains.html
>> And here is the Stacker News discussion:
>> https://stacker.news/items/222480
>>
>> Nevertheless, I will hit the high points of the concept here:
>>
>> The most challenging problem that BIP-300 aims to address is how to
>> establish a two-way peg without involving a multisig federation and without
>> requiring miners and full nodes to possess knowledge about the sidechain or
>> run a sidechain node. This is, in fact, a very difficult nut to crack.
>>
>> The method adopted by BIP-300 involves conducting sidechain withdrawals
>> directly through the miners. To prevent miners from engaging in theft, the
>> proposal mandates a three-month period for peg-outs, during which all
>> miners vote on the peg-out. The intention here is to allow the community to
>> respond in the event of an incorrect peg-out or theft. The miners are
>> expected to be responsive to community pressure and make the correct
>> decisions. To streamline this process of social consensus, withdrawals are
>> grouped into one large bundle per three month period.
>>
>> Despite criticisms of this proposal, I find it to be a viable and likely
>> effective solution. After all, Bitcoin's underlying mechanism is
>> fundamentally rooted in social consensus, with the only question being the
>> extent of automation. Nonetheless, I believe we now possess tools that can
>> improve this process, leading to the concept of Sentinel chains.
>>
>> The core idea is that sidechain nodes function as Sentinels, notifying
>> full nodes of thefts via a secondary network. These sidechain nodes monitor
>> the current state of Bitcoin blocks and mempool transactions, actively
>> searching for peg-outs that contravene sidechain consensus in order to
>> steal funds. They transmit invalid transactions or blocks to public Nostr
>> servers. Bitcoin full nodes wishing to partake in sidechain consensus can
>> run a small daemon alongside Bitcoin Core. This daemon can monitor public
>> Nostr nodes for messages about invalid transactions and then instruct
>> Bitcoin Core, via RPC calls, to ignore and not forward those invalid
>> transactions.
>>
>> Full nodes can choose any group of individuals or organizations to
>> receive updates from Nostr. For instance, a full node might choose to trust
>> a collective of 100 sidechain nodes consisting of a mix of prominent
>> companies and individuals in the sidechain's sphere. Rather than relying on
>> a single trusted group, full nodes form their own decentralized web of
>> trust.
>>
>> This reverses the conventional model of two-way pegged sidechains.
>> Instead of requiring nodes to monitor sidechains, sidechains now monitor
>> nodes. In this sense, it is akin to drivechains, with the difference being
>> that peg-outs could be instantaneous and individual, without the need for
>> the three-month gradual social consensus. Furthermore, a single daemon can
>> be configured to monitor notifications from any number of Sentinel chains,
>> rendering this solution highly scalable for numerous sidechains.
>>
>> In summary, drivechains:
>>
>> - Require an initial consensus soft fork
>> - Treat each new sidechain as a miner-activated soft fork (easier to
>> deploy but more centralized)
>> - Feature withdrawals occurring in three-month periods
>> - Involve withdrawals in bundles
>> - Exclude Bitcoin full nodes from participation in sidechain consensus
>> - Are currently production-ready
>>
>> Sentinel chains:
>>
>> - Require no initial soft fork of any kind
>> - Permit each new sidechain to be miner-activated OR user-activated (more
>> challenging to deploy but more decentralized)
>> - Allow instantaneous withdrawals
>> - Facilitate individual withdrawals
>> - Enable Bitcoin full nodes to engage in consensus
>> - Are only at the concept stage
>>
>> Sentinel chains could potentially offer substantial advantages over other
>> forms of two-way pegs, primarily in terms of speed and efficiency of
>> consensus. Moreover, they align more closely with Bitcoin's principles by
>> ensuring that power remains within the realm of full nodes. Lastly, they
>> shield Core-only users from potential bug consequences stemming from
>> consensus changes directly implemented in Bitcoin Core, possibly fulfilling
>> the long-awaited promise of a fully opt-in soft fork.
>>
>>
>> Ryan Breen
>> Twitter: ursuscamp
>> Email: ryan @ breen.xyz
>> Web: https://ursus.camp
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230822/c7aa16d5/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: Ryan envisions a system where there is no cryptographic proof involved in validating transactions, which contradicts the idea of fraud proof. This reliance on trusted entities and the ability to choose different sets of validators could lead to consensus failures. Ruben raises concerns about data availability and the potential issues it may cause.
📝 Original message:
Hi Ryan,
>As I envision it, there is no cryptographic proof involved at all.
That seems to directly contradict your previous message where you stated
"[t]hey transmit invalid transactions or blocks". This transmission you
alluded to is basically a (non-optimized) fraud proof, and it assumes that
this data is actually available (unsafe assumption).
If you envision that this step is not actually needed, then users are
essentially never validating and merely relying on a set of trusted
entities. Furthermore, the idea that everyone can just pick their own set
of validators is antithetical to consensus. What if my set of validators
disagrees with your set of validators? Now one of us will reject the
Bitcoin block with the peg-out while the other will not, causing sidechain
consensus failure to directly affect the mainchain.
Cheers,
Ruben
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 8:58 PM <ryan at breen.xyz> wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback, Ruben. I have a question.
>
> Could you please clarify what qualifies as a fraud proof in this concept?
> As I envision it, there is no cryptographic proof involved at all.
>
> In the context of a Sentinel chain, the sidechain's full nodes monitor
> Bitcoin mempools and blocks for withdrawals that violate the rules of the
> sidechain's consensus (such as thefts or incorrect balances). When the
> sidechain's full nodes detect an invalid withdrawal on Bitcoin, they
> publish a signed attestation to a public broadcast network (Nostr in this
> case). Participating Bitcoin full nodes and miners monitor the network for
> these attestations and subsequently reject the offending transactions. The
> process doesn't involve the presentation of proof because it's a
> distributed trust relationship.
>
> While Bitcoin full nodes could decide to operate their own sidechain
> nodes, we aim not to make this a requirement (addressing the long-standing
> sidechain dilemma). Bitcoin full nodes and miners wishing to participate
> can instead choose a distributed trust network comprising operators of
> sidechain full nodes that they trust. For instance, if they decide to
> follow 100 well-respected sidechain node operators, they might collectively
> agree that if 75 of them issue an attestation indicating that a transaction
> violates sidechain withdrawal rules, then that transaction should be deemed
> invalid by their node. Withdrawals are assumed valid if no public
> attestations are present.
>
> Furthermore, I'm uncertain about what potential data availability issue
> that might arise from this. Since there are no alterations to Bitcoin
> Core's validation logic, when a full node operator starts a new node from
> the genesis block, they will validate the proof of work of the longest
> chain and remain blissfully unaware that the transactions within the blocks
> are even associated with a sidechain.
>
> On Aug 19, 2023, at 10:35 AM, Ruben Somsen <rsomsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write a proposal. As is often the case,
> these ideas aren't actually as novel as you might think. What you describe
> here is known as "fraud proofs". The crucial problem it doesn't address is
> "data availability".
>
> The general idea behind fraud proofs is that if you commit to every
> computational step (note Bitcoin currently doesn't, but could), anyone can
> succinctly reveal erroneous steps (e.g. 1+1=3), thus convincing everyone
> the state transition (i.e. block) is invalid. This works if a bunch of
> people have all the data and are willing to construct and spread the fraud
> proofs, but what if nobody has the data?
>
> When someone claims data is unavailable, the only way to verify this claim
> is by downloading the data. You can't just ban this peer for false claims
> either, since the data might have actually been unavailable when the claim
> was made but then became available. In essence this means malicious peers
> can cause you to download all data, meaning you effectively haven't saved
> any bandwidth.
>
> It should be noted that fraud proofs could still reduce the need for
> computation (i.e. you download all data, but only verify the parts for
> which you receive fraud notifications), so it can still provide some form
> of scaling.
>
> As a bit of history, fraud proofs were actually briefly considered for
> inclusion into segwit, but were abandoned due to the data availability
> issue:
> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#update-2016-10-19
>
> And finally, there is a way to address the data availability issue, which
> I describe here (PoW fraud proofs/softchains, though note I am currently of
> the opinion it's better used for low-bandwidth mainchain nodes instead of
> for sidechains):
> https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/7ecf7f13dc2496aa7eed8815a02f13d1
>
> In theory you can also do data availability sampling through the use of
> erasure codes, but that gets very complex and brittle.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruben
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 4:29 PM Ryan Breen via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Recent discussions on social media regarding drivechains have prompted me
>> to consider the implementation of a two-way sidechain peg within the
>> Bitcoin protocol. I would like to propose what I believe may be a novel
>> solution to this issue.
>>
>> I have previously written about here on my blog:
>> https://ursus.camp/bitcoin/2023/08/10/sidechains.html
>> And here is the Stacker News discussion:
>> https://stacker.news/items/222480
>>
>> Nevertheless, I will hit the high points of the concept here:
>>
>> The most challenging problem that BIP-300 aims to address is how to
>> establish a two-way peg without involving a multisig federation and without
>> requiring miners and full nodes to possess knowledge about the sidechain or
>> run a sidechain node. This is, in fact, a very difficult nut to crack.
>>
>> The method adopted by BIP-300 involves conducting sidechain withdrawals
>> directly through the miners. To prevent miners from engaging in theft, the
>> proposal mandates a three-month period for peg-outs, during which all
>> miners vote on the peg-out. The intention here is to allow the community to
>> respond in the event of an incorrect peg-out or theft. The miners are
>> expected to be responsive to community pressure and make the correct
>> decisions. To streamline this process of social consensus, withdrawals are
>> grouped into one large bundle per three month period.
>>
>> Despite criticisms of this proposal, I find it to be a viable and likely
>> effective solution. After all, Bitcoin's underlying mechanism is
>> fundamentally rooted in social consensus, with the only question being the
>> extent of automation. Nonetheless, I believe we now possess tools that can
>> improve this process, leading to the concept of Sentinel chains.
>>
>> The core idea is that sidechain nodes function as Sentinels, notifying
>> full nodes of thefts via a secondary network. These sidechain nodes monitor
>> the current state of Bitcoin blocks and mempool transactions, actively
>> searching for peg-outs that contravene sidechain consensus in order to
>> steal funds. They transmit invalid transactions or blocks to public Nostr
>> servers. Bitcoin full nodes wishing to partake in sidechain consensus can
>> run a small daemon alongside Bitcoin Core. This daemon can monitor public
>> Nostr nodes for messages about invalid transactions and then instruct
>> Bitcoin Core, via RPC calls, to ignore and not forward those invalid
>> transactions.
>>
>> Full nodes can choose any group of individuals or organizations to
>> receive updates from Nostr. For instance, a full node might choose to trust
>> a collective of 100 sidechain nodes consisting of a mix of prominent
>> companies and individuals in the sidechain's sphere. Rather than relying on
>> a single trusted group, full nodes form their own decentralized web of
>> trust.
>>
>> This reverses the conventional model of two-way pegged sidechains.
>> Instead of requiring nodes to monitor sidechains, sidechains now monitor
>> nodes. In this sense, it is akin to drivechains, with the difference being
>> that peg-outs could be instantaneous and individual, without the need for
>> the three-month gradual social consensus. Furthermore, a single daemon can
>> be configured to monitor notifications from any number of Sentinel chains,
>> rendering this solution highly scalable for numerous sidechains.
>>
>> In summary, drivechains:
>>
>> - Require an initial consensus soft fork
>> - Treat each new sidechain as a miner-activated soft fork (easier to
>> deploy but more centralized)
>> - Feature withdrawals occurring in three-month periods
>> - Involve withdrawals in bundles
>> - Exclude Bitcoin full nodes from participation in sidechain consensus
>> - Are currently production-ready
>>
>> Sentinel chains:
>>
>> - Require no initial soft fork of any kind
>> - Permit each new sidechain to be miner-activated OR user-activated (more
>> challenging to deploy but more decentralized)
>> - Allow instantaneous withdrawals
>> - Facilitate individual withdrawals
>> - Enable Bitcoin full nodes to engage in consensus
>> - Are only at the concept stage
>>
>> Sentinel chains could potentially offer substantial advantages over other
>> forms of two-way pegs, primarily in terms of speed and efficiency of
>> consensus. Moreover, they align more closely with Bitcoin's principles by
>> ensuring that power remains within the realm of full nodes. Lastly, they
>> shield Core-only users from potential bug consequences stemming from
>> consensus changes directly implemented in Bitcoin Core, possibly fulfilling
>> the long-awaited promise of a fully opt-in soft fork.
>>
>>
>> Ryan Breen
>> Twitter: ursuscamp
>> Email: ryan @ breen.xyz
>> Web: https://ursus.camp
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230822/c7aa16d5/attachment-0001.html>;