Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46E46A74 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:23:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f66.google.com (mail-lf0-f66.google.com [209.85.215.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF85433 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:23:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f66.google.com with SMTP id 90so4094695lfs.4 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:23:47 -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=/updSCiZAZngu9aulkEfdQM7x6E1xmU3RqXf7jIn6uU=; b=pxmhsVKcRWE9bM68gr7LdbHB5fQaZ4GS8+6jhVPwgKRjDDg5V/0vfrCPBBrtfvzzBx f/dzhqNxA0Aetm+/wZa8TjRekMAeqaR5cvemrqiG2xB9PCPRBAwRpMY+L9VXkblYuGlB +y5ipzG8r+ByRg+c5ik173mpU7A8LooqOnv7G/wbzJvLv1PSJLW0oOw5rsQQCEq+wUh2 VOZhMHYbuiA2HpeJF12SZgGW9MonGEGIjQOwKLws7wyLoHkIjwg5J5yMfHeOosjM/H1A Tkbwuivay8x6eUTTbJWPwf15oNoFazqmHOlGUHN+HSN7B5xs2UXqWYYodIOJ55rekQIE 8n1w== 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=/updSCiZAZngu9aulkEfdQM7x6E1xmU3RqXf7jIn6uU=; b=j3MovaKCoTivdSpuRZlgQrN650YECi5OlJUpwDpfw7vldsvVo9d5HbSEl7xjDSwqc1 lmgfBgiDr1GofjtIpUn+Cw108hyx6AILO7xUDd76v/xlNqesiHvnrR8SJ9otTokLT7Yd NhMMiKebsJyYhav/KDjYYDR1Q2EKFE5Ex9NyauYKgtfW/xKqZz6PGOKVJnm2vldehxrN s70H2QdQGacPAwFZ3Nn9FcBdTs4GMak8aWHdFe1DrBQ6jL0nFB9WlSGa7zGLbFKV68RR 1KoLhmCvKcupEluGsqdFVSk4auHUgCsuUK7RXv233nWKxtbtrVNfiGvqK5Q6SFL7qmNj lNcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWwtXIetq6+5ucpUrbvIHSsVOYVpQRX1u3eXS3PGM8NMG7n5MVf nNqtpg/u8mSL/KbvVyuH905etXaSQ2Ex5rAvvdk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDIfc3xPzFWPfkgHhswO4oi9nc1zZHuBFpg/SgdNeAIuNqImQWbvfjoceA7Me7xE/nUPpRLf8qaIeBd5bByEqM= X-Received: by 10.46.91.25 with SMTP id p25mr6600514ljb.46.1507667025851; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.15.160 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.160 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com> From: Paul Sztorc Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:23:45 -0400 Message-ID: To: Lucas Clemente Vella Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c17c683f889055b37159d" X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:23:48 -0000 --001a114c17c683f889055b37159d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" What if two sidechains are implemented at once? What if people get excited about one sidechain today, but a second even-better one is published the very next week? What if the original mainchain decides to integrate the features of the sidechain that you just one-way pegged to? In these cases, the user looses money, whereas in the two-way peg they would not lose a thing. While the one-way peg is interesting, it really doesn't compare. Paul On Oct 10, 2017 4:19 PM, "Lucas Clemente Vella" wrote: 2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev : > 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 --001a114c17c683f889055b37159d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What if two sidechains are implemented at once? What if p= eople get excited about one sidechain today, but a second even-better one i= s published the very next week? What if the original mainchain decides to i= ntegrate the features of the sidechain that you just one-way pegged to?
In these cases, the user looses m= oney, whereas in the two-way peg they would not lose a thing.

While the one-way peg is interesting,= it really doesn't compare.

Paul

On Oct 10, 2017 4:19 PM, "Lucas Clemente Vella" <lvella@gmail.com> wrote:
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 wh= at 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.
=C2=A0
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).
=C2=A0
= --
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail.com

--001a114c17c683f889055b37159d--