Add third BIP to propose a specific first sidechain

[Sjors]

Having a clear and specific goal in sight helps to keep things less abstract and tends to motivate people.

My suggestion would be a 1 GB chain based on Core, with a few tweaks, such as:

1. mandatory SegWit (or at least the anti-quadratic signing fix)
2. a minimum fee for the first year; each year a new minimum fee can be set through a soft-fork. This controls spam a bit.
3. any non-controversial removal of technical debt that can be done safely and quickly (not the whole kitchen sink, because it would cause too much delay)

Having a side chain with 3 orders of magnitude more capacity than the original chain provides useful data for any scaling decisions on the main chain. Perhaps new attacks will discovered this way, leaving plenty of time to come up with counter measures on the smaller block chain. Any mitigation can be applied to the side chain as well (for hard-fork changes, would the side-chain have to hard-fork at the same time?).

[droplister]

This is more of a meta comment than an issue with the design or implementation thus far. In my opinion, it does not benefit the Drivechain project to champion any one specific sidechain at this point. There's a long technical road ahead for Drivechain-enabled sidechains.

I recommend joining the Wednesday meetings. Or beginning work on your sidechain, as described, and report issues you encounter while trying to interface with Drivechain's design.

[Sjors]

I don't think I have the appropriate skillset to build a side chain, but I'll keep an eye on the progress.

I'm not saying you should advocate a particular chain; but you could throw an idea like this at the developer community and if there's not too much controversy at least get a BIP drafted. Once it's sketched out in enough detail, someone else will take ownership and then they can squabble over the precise ruleset from there on.

This suggestion is purely to get the ball rolling. If you already have people beating down your doors with their own concrete side-chains, then it's certainly not necessary.

Feel free to close this.

[Sjors]

Another way to phrase it, maybe more in line with a documentation improvement, is for you to write a template BIP that new side chain authors can use, with all consensus rules as lorem ipsum.

[droplister]

I see where you are coming from. Check out this page: http://www.drivechain.info/projects/index.html

[CryptAxe]

I think that a template BIP to help out future sidechain developers is a great idea, probably without the lorem ipsum filler though. The mainchainBMM branch of our bitcoin fork is the template sidechain implementation, but we should have a template BIP as well.

If you check out the project page that @droplister has linked to you'll see that we do have plans for a big block testing sidechain and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzg_u9gHc5Q&feature=youtu.be&t=1h49m27s goes into a bit more detail.

You should definitely join us tomorrow at 1PM EST @Sjors and @droplister so that we can go into the details and parameters of the big block testing sidechain! The IRC channel is #drivechain-dev on freenode.

[CryptAxe]

Also see this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-discuss/2017-June/000148.html

[psztorc]

@Sjors If you want to make a 1gb sidechain, you can make one.

[Sjors]

Alright, here's a start: Sjors/bitcoin#1