diff options
| author | Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com> | 2017-10-10 17:18:39 -0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-10-10 20:19:01 +0000 |
| commit | 0e3a087034cde9f64c8257252e09b84446d733b5 (patch) | |
| tree | 67c67a314a2e3d2401a6270325f71493ad00bda7 | |
| parent | 2cbf8648a27a0027abf5b0fa41e9d313e9f9ab4c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-0e3a087034cde9f64c8257252e09b84446d733b5.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0e3a087034cde9f64c8257252e09b84446d733b5.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC
| -rw-r--r-- | d1/a9da0996e300841789dcaf2c697b28318c9011 | 129 |
1 files changed, 129 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/d1/a9da0996e300841789dcaf2c697b28318c9011 b/d1/a9da0996e300841789dcaf2c697b28318c9011 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..682ccf78b --- /dev/null +++ b/d1/a9da0996e300841789dcaf2c697b28318c9011 @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +Return-Path: <lvella@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB67AA88 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A065433 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id i124so308389wmf.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:19:01 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=; + b=HAlaqoy9dfZUjEe4KZHBoBZGEIe4nWj5ByHsM/kwm41Rei28MPKwzZk0lTCwQa+BwE + fhGQ/rV1KT2T6uzGvkLS9ktaCg/ajaxJqXvgwWNm4DziXHfB8CLYOdPUPj6r67KxLrab + 82CjO96zNrLOlg38Qqx3RYAeDxv94UxWy3zleqlSxrYn2iJ3v7gzMP4obf15N6KB7ORh + zUD+BX75eXq2elP76S885p4gTQ2225WM3AoBl5yyn+aVOsNlRMUMPEwJkuNMMC2Oqh8G + W49CEpjIMdr/itPJnszq9ZKWVUoXoMYuxYIHJaAvXbdns9ZayzoT6IQNN6Bd6afAsrWH + dU6Q== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=; + b=N3SyTDyIcBdsHVQ9Ebb9ftETiahHxwyJC5nH0mEKDuZ9LP3YTw+6Z2eN1W8V7bh7+V + nHqHh4xYt1jRCtTTEcSpdafUxN6ffSJ4K+zw7NTIpWeljHEhmsLJ6Cps6Z4PpTVwsVHb + Mxe2lg53KZvxK8Gny+5jswyXNlcQz/97Md2xw0O96OCCalUWu7CWQr9qxNaNibyjGHsE + /AII2YyzM98vvv/XVTg2Hc3XKYTOp/qlwlmqDAlXDnZ2LjDXXQyjlww2VyEvz8xK0mTQ + Mu/d2BwojPT+i0a6kPe+/EM0EfHH45B/oSrTpGJ232jKnFef/VlOdaPw6S5BoI13R0a4 + zwfQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVhaDY2B/z8rZ7b2vVGOnXQJ98+rg9P5S+bYlkzHIdJzUHD5Wr1 + dYkGuV+DWfHIoEYPTKiovzEJVfbDLylO/T3HmlU= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDEJdjncT7DUEW5+aAXgpa3YGjv1AAZQPkTTyRAb+FhqJqyioY55ad8xK43Itrd5YBy8mPwKG8TtTXrWJlRcic= +X-Received: by 10.223.136.85 with SMTP id e21mr12485625wre.37.1507666739988; + Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.28.86.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com> +References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com> + <CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:18:39 -0300 +Message-ID: <CAGCathy2U7+Qy4gLB0S_j-kArvGHuELDgzweFR4grQQ9AZgAbg@mail.gmail.com> +To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114925387a104d055b3704e8" +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, + DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, + RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:21:12 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized + scaling without Miners owning our BTC +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:02 -0000 + +--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: + +> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way. +> +> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters +> for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to +> succeed. +> +> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages. +> + +I understand the first-mover disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the +new chain is Pareto optimal, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the +original chain, but in some so much better to justify the change, the +initial resistance is an unstable equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes +attacking a lion: the first buffalo to attack is in awful disadvantage, but +if a critical mass of the herd follows, the movement succeeds beyond +turning back, and every buffalo benefited, both those who attacked the lion +and those that didn't (because the lion was chased away or killed). + +-- +Lucas Clemente Vella +lvella@gmail.com + +--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2017= +-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a= + href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bi= +tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D= +"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding= +-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way= +.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">In fact, that is exact= +ly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters for the drivechain that = +make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to succeed.</div><div dir= +=3D"auto"><br></div><div>One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages= +.</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>I understand the first-move= +r disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optima= +l, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the original chain, but in some = +so much better to justify the change, the initial resistance is an unstable= + equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes attacking a lion: the first buffalo = +to attack is in awful disadvantage, but if a critical mass of the herd foll= +ows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited= +, both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the l= +ion was chased away or killed).<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div= + class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature">Lucas Clement= +e Vella<br><a href=3D"mailto:lvella@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lvella@gma= +il.com</a></div> +</div></div> + +--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8-- + |