Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to mention the specific history of blockchain interoperability. Since I was directly or indirectly involved in these developments, I’ll start by highlighting three examples:

- Bitcoin Drivechain Capabilities [1].

- Dogethereum: A Decentralized Blockchain Bridge Between Dogecoin and Ethereum is Born [2].

- BitVMX is a new framework to optimistically execute arbitrary programs in Bitcoin based on the N-party disputable computation paradigm pioneered by BitVM [3]

I'd like to complement this thread with a whitepaper I'm currently writing on a new L1 solution called Roughchain. I've included a preface titled "Web3 for Skeptics" to align with the perspectives of the HN community. I'll be working on the draft this Sunday, and while it’s still incomplete, I’d appreciate any thoughts or feedback. Feel free to comment [4].

[1] https://github.com/rsksmart/bips/blob/master/BIP-R11.md

[2] https://www.coinfabrik.com/blog/dogethereum-blockchain-bridg...

[3] https://bitvmx.org/

[4] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FXv0Fp2R6UEs2s4_GiAw4b93...

Some ad-hoc feedback on [4]:

- You don't explain that BFT in SMR is also a property of pre-blockchain 1990's permissioned systems such as PBFT or (Byzantine) Paxos. You don't distinguish between LCR + PoW (Nakamoto consensus) systems and PBFT + PoS systems that have much better latency and finality properties.

- You suggest a "governed" list of signers. If this is permissioned, then this might be a system that's "as good as it gets" in terms of low-latency, high-throughput SMR, and could be well-governed (law abiding). But then I'd eschew the blockchain moniker, as that's so tainted with fraud and BS.

- The "Introduction for crypto skeptics" does nothing to alleviate the crypto skeptics' concerns.

- You claim that updating protocols used by multiple parties is "obviously time and resource consuming" (correctly, in my view), then claim that smart contracts can somehow solve this (incorrectly, in my view) without any motivation or explanation or evidence whatsoever, except to say that "automating the process" is more efficient. Yes, obviously automating processes is more efficient than doing them manually, but how do smart contracts allow you to automate the process of updating a protocol when new circumstances arise?

Thank you very much for your feedback! This is a work-in-progress draft, and while I'm not exactly where I want to be yet, your insights are really helpful. Here's my first takeaway:

I'll make sure to include a stronger technical background. Although it's a whitepaper (not a full research paper), I agree that it should be approachable from different critical perspectives.

Regarding your comments:

I see the need to distinguish more clearly between BFT in pre-blockchain systems like PBFT/Paxos and more modern PoW/PoS consensus systems. I'll refine that distinction.

I do have a specific catch in mind regarding the "governed list of signers" that I'd love your thoughts on when I include it. It might align more with the type of well-governed, high-throughput systems you're describing, but I understand your concern about using the blockchain label, which can carry negative connotations.

As for the "Introduction for crypto skeptics," I'd really appreciate hearing more from your perspective on how to make that section more convincing. What do you think would help, if possible, alleviate those concerns?

On the topic of updating protocols: I was trying to highlight the challenges of moving from specification to implementation in multiparty contexts (based on experience with government agencies), the idea is independent from blockchains.

Lastly, this is a side project for me, so progress might be gradual, but I would truly value your input again as it evolves. Would you be open to reviewing updates from time to time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com