diff options
| author | ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> | 2019-01-20 02:06:08 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2019-01-20 02:06:17 +0000 |
| commit | f54d1601dcc2af21e8b027ecef14fc200ff12d81 (patch) | |
| tree | 7745d072e740c347894886cae18cd3bf7ea8a52c | |
| parent | ae5a29ebd7e0baf705b3dc65423627b49d4cd102 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-f54d1601dcc2af21e8b027ecef14fc200ff12d81.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-f54d1601dcc2af21e8b027ecef14fc200ff12d81.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Sidechains
| -rw-r--r-- | d4/b747b172ce7f786245b8ce0ce5a52d5de59f7a | 143 |
1 files changed, 143 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/d4/b747b172ce7f786245b8ce0ce5a52d5de59f7a b/d4/b747b172ce7f786245b8ce0ce5a52d5de59f7a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d07fdd8a --- /dev/null +++ b/d4/b747b172ce7f786245b8ce0ce5a52d5de59f7a @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +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 53504491 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 20 Jan 2019 02:06:17 +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 58FAC318 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 20 Jan 2019 02:06:16 +0000 (UTC) +Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 02:06:08 +0000 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; + s=default; t=1547949973; + bh=+pbdUqjEn7DdNWu9F3fYIAabbfy+091aX4QJ6uc3BvU=; + h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: + Feedback-ID:From; + b=yOj6CSHdONTgdeIMc4VxEKYmIMYi8/A+DF8W9OexyrQSNUzM8vZiPqIKE1raXXPIM + g2eATazepO72s1pHCk38vxxOs48i99E8jSRx8pbuiwhn6+zaACoJ4zB5zD2/UfPBv9 + Z4uXelOq4qs9mHNm3F2k8d5D8Z4G7ML+aYXwFjEw= +To: Matt Bell <mappum@gmail.com> +From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <nq9NDv6z-EJuJ9jGMWdlIZbpVM6Rm8QyuWL3nRYtXWF90I-cErA_WS1ib28kt950bZYyfF1_eP153aDjhUy523wYSM9TVaeHqeZdp3xJpsk=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CACV3+OWjszx6istHo7yaNxiS22kyhHQhcPxGT3QLDx3KPUMU6g@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CACV3+OU1ynRuR2SioW+O+CAp5M7ZQA6af_hEY5JZCVrXpqjtKQ@mail.gmail.com> + <BTyUDt_7oOQmFj_V61w2eUJ7rfi-eOuNphy5nN0xNAhY4sUHnR2-0U9m-ZEKip4YjFi2-hGBtucvFv7nCTVo3aBxZ94VQCa1Kx2pP_zgdxU=@protonmail.com> + <CACV3+OWjszx6istHo7yaNxiS22kyhHQhcPxGT3QLDx3KPUMU6g@mail.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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 03:35:08 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin Sidechains +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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 02:06:17 -0000 + +Good Morning Matt, + +It seems to me that double signing can be punished by requiring that R be a= + trivial function on the blockheight of the block being signed on the sidec= +hain network. Then a validator who signs multiple versions of history at a = +particular blockheight reveals their privkey. Since the privkey also protec= +ts their Bitcoin stake UTXO, they risk loss of their Bitcoin stake. A simil= +ar idea is used by Discrete Log Contracts to ensure Oracles do not sign mul= +tiple values at a particular time. + +Regards, +ZmnSCPxj + + +Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. + +=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= +ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 +On Saturday, January 19, 2019 1:35 PM, Matt Bell <mappum@gmail.com> wrote: + +> Hi ZmnSCPxj, +> +> Just to clarify, my design does not specify the source of voting power, s= +o it is agnostic to whatever system you want to derive stake or valdiator s= +et membership from. +> +> Your idea of timelocking Bitcoin is interesting, I am eager to find a sol= +ution where holding Bitcoin is enough to get voting power. It's possible th= +ere may be an issue with the fact that the Bitcoin is not slashable (althou= +gh their voting power is), meaning a validator who double-signs cannot have= + their Bitcoin removed from them. However their UTXO can be blacklisted whi= +ch does make their attack costly since they lose out on the time-value of t= +heir stake. +> +> Our current thinking for the source of stake is to pay out stake to Bitco= +in merged-miners although=C2=A0I'll definitely do some more thinking about = +timelocked Bitcoin as stake. +> +> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 5:42 PM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com wrote: +> +> > Good morning Matt, +> > +> > It seems to me much more interesting if the stakes used to weigh voting= + power are UTXOs on the Bitcoin blockchain. +> > This idea is what I call "mainstake"; rather than a blockchain having i= +ts own token that is self-attesting (which is insecure). +> > It seems to me, naively, that the same script you propose here can be u= +sed for mainstake. +> > +> > For instance, the sidechain network might accept potential stakers on t= +he mainchain, if the staker proves the existence of a mainchain transaction= + whose output is for example: +> > +> > <sidechain identifier> OP_DROP +> > "1 year" OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_DROP +> > <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG +> > +> > The sidechain network could accept this and use the value of the output= + as the weight of the vote of that stake. +> > +> > Regards, +> > ZmnSCPxj +> > +> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. +> > +> > =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Origina= +l Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80= +=90 +> > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 6:59 AM, Matt Bell via bitcoin-dev <bitco= +in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> > +> > > I have been working on a design for Bitcoin sidechains using the Tend= +ermint BFT consensus protocol, which is commonly used to build proof-of-sta= +ke networks (Cosmos is the notable one). +> > > +> > > The design ends up being very similar to Blockstream's Liquid sidecha= +in, since Tendermint consensus is not far off from Liquid's "strong federat= +ion" consensus. +> > > +> > > Any feedback about improvements or critical flaws would be greatly ap= +preciated. The design document is here: https://github.com/mappum/bitcoin-p= +eg/blob/master/bitcoinPeg.md (that repo also contains a simplified implemen= +tation of this sidechain design). +> > > +> > > Thanks for your feedback, +> > > Matt Bell + + + |