diff options
| author | ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> | 2019-04-04 23:52:20 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2019-04-04 23:52:26 +0000 |
| commit | 899528df238b4642949ba84de028cb3b83e9b490 (patch) | |
| tree | 251937b985b30a171d7dd2f1680bf6b9c3568c40 | |
| parent | 1e68ef9f046fb6046266e17bde574e692b338931 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-899528df238b4642949ba84de028cb3b83e9b490.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-899528df238b4642949ba84de028cb3b83e9b490.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained
| -rw-r--r-- | e5/dceb8f96eae868ed5ed5382242cd098dcfaf6a | 110 |
1 files changed, 110 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e5/dceb8f96eae868ed5ed5382242cd098dcfaf6a b/e5/dceb8f96eae868ed5ed5382242cd098dcfaf6a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d1e10909 --- /dev/null +++ b/e5/dceb8f96eae868ed5ed5382242cd098dcfaf6a @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8785A218F + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:52:26 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch + [185.70.40.133]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACA56D6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:52:25 +0000 (UTC) +Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:52:20 +0000 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; + s=default; t=1554421943; + bh=vEHs43tXf52ZZcuZnFnvZ3MLdvu+SWgTum1vBKHePzM=; + h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: + Feedback-ID:From; + b=cC7qOa3kI/w1J0kjC7aA2RmOrSdC243Tye0tFxEtogkbCJxs6J06ZT1Nx/ABJXNpM + oS0B9VOst6nkI5WIhAd9AtMHiK/3/XIlV+il+bU6K0czW4yiCS1XyWirpRDisRhVJP + UEeJNLz2KZ52Fv4wmKG6KmOSgTJzQq+766YEqLZo= +To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> +From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <TF9WSGU6njZqgOyJF5-m1gYMwfgUCStjUV-IpRuX67w1Z6jL2Tdarr6PCOUO1vFb9hz_jWnbe_5Tg8E_a9iyPeXIY_iJUf9YN8u9xB4SC90=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <d1cfa2e9-69e4-ee02-4c10-23b2b1a30e00@gmail.com> +References: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com> + <d1cfa2e9-69e4-ee02-4c10-23b2b1a30e00@gmail.com> +Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 03:19:01 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained +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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:52:26 -0000 + +Good morning Aymeric, + + +> What if the smart contract platform(s) disappear? +> + +It is still possible to recover the funds, *if* you can convince all partic= +ipants of some "fair" distribution of the funds. +You do this by all participants simply signing with their participant keys = +and taking the first branch of the script. +This branch does not require the participation of the smart contract platfo= +rm, at all. +If all participants can agree to the result of the smart contract without d= +ispute, then they can exit the platform even after the platform disappears. + +Now of course there will be participants who will not cooperate in such a c= +ase, for example if they were doing some betting game and "lost". +But at least it gives the possibility of doing so, and it will not be as ma= +ssive a loss. + +Indeed, if the smart contract platform code is open source, it may be possi= +ble to set up another implementation of the smart contract platform. +And it would be possible to at least try to convince all participants to sw= +itch to that new platform (again, via the "as long as everybody agrees" esc= +ape hatch). +Again, this is not possible with current federated sidechains, or Ethereum = +(if Ethereum fails, all ETH becomes valueless). + +> The proposal induces a very centralized system, to my knowledge all of +> existing sidechains whether on bitcoin or ethereum are centralized, +> except lightning (if we forget that someone must watch what others are +> doing when you are on a trek in Nepal) + +I would not lump together Lightning with sidechains. +Indeed, this design moves things closer to true offchain techniques (as in = +Lightning) than to sidechain techniques. + +So while centralized, it is less centralized than a federated sidechains. + +> Now I don't get why a sidechain should be a blockchain on top on another +> one (given also that we can't consider bitcoin or ethereum as +> decentralized today, so the path might be long for the sidechains...), +> the latest is used to store the final state, the former does not have to +> store forever the intermediate states, then it could just use a +> decentralized system (not necessarilly blockchain-like) to store the +> intermediate states and maybe be a distributed escrow +> +> I know, easy to say, please do it (why not), now the fact that +> sidechains claim to be decentralized or that they will be is just +> misleading people (that's not the case of your proposal but it does not +> say what happens if the platforms go down) + +Perhaps it can be a next step. + +Regards, +ZmnSCPxj + |