Replying to Avatar Cyber Seagull

Can you explain to me the difference between BMM, Blind Merged mining and Hash escrow ?

DC is a two part bitcoin improvement proposal. 300&301

300 came first, obviously, and 301 came later as an added bonus and logical extension.

In the above reply you are applying BMM and "securing the drive chain" to peg out, which i assume is what you mean by hash escrow. Which are not the same.

BMM does not need to be implemented by several types of technologies we might find on a sidechain. So if, out of 256 sideschains only 10 use POW and BMM, how are miners able to attacknall of them. I point this out again because if you think they still can there is a huge gap in understanding.

DC Peg outs are just like any other UTXO. Why don't miners "attack" any other UTXO. If they do or can, the bitcoin game theory or tech is broken and we have much bigger problems than adding one OP code to core.
Avatar
Guy Swann 2y ago

It isn’t about “attacking” the UTXO in my thinking. It’s about submitting a malicious one, and then ACKing it despite contradicting with the rules of the sidechain.

I’ll try to take some time this week to go back through the links you gave. I still just feel like I get dismissal with most of the concerns and I really want to see and get the process on *exactly what happens* in the case of a malicious miner. Not a statement that they won’t exist. Same thing we did with Ark, just spent the entire episode trying to break down and make a shape of this thing by attacking all of the edge cases.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.