Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D042E58 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF63FC for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id d13so6622671iog.5 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dktnaXDXXtyp1PDt48uDzyFuatEdKdOAQPIBG4KOJFE=; b=ziFhWdc4CYjSv8y2LiUEXkmABCObYGeb3bq1JpZAv2Fwv5odB4CE1YNFszbNd/rzvO r9KPnvlC2vFS8DSts8Y4y0sXKA8PoYY1g6oQsH4gRux2u7H/BKcrugl5bwE+i9Nwqoc6 19ADDbfHbKp1DVUyvuaH3gWz1VAK1ntXFu9Y1K6QIXAz3qze4kV80CoGNbkSUjWRY7cK VmxUAF+wk7AIyUq+21CiTPXD+Y76ZLC2p0t760NkQMI9PcJkZlaBr9FVEk7rEvqMzelL PYBfHCbAWLehD/Xz1km6brAVDzU6VJdRp45rQ5XXd6njsitd9FnEdEZ7WMUSIXI5zGZl OmMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dktnaXDXXtyp1PDt48uDzyFuatEdKdOAQPIBG4KOJFE=; b=TrtCUArz/gwilRW1GFwXj5VclP2t4JH+Fcak0XXYLAy4eqcE/aI2fL3lUVbTetqxiS gG0koZXbx9FlP3b9yYSHlg3FBeHF5/+lhZW/Qbnhrc2TB7fx8R0aJ68Tcv89KHKwmsPR q9XqrqQmL7tWbOe0EfccutVXRKosv1Ydp3sEvrNGFqzhJZIn1AFNtOnYx/b8QdAGLSAB sTKFF/DPqHzfEQAfpqOzxa5eDrlzQ4Lu+9RxsV+dcG27aO9E7UjRmTAL0xEcKijfnLMy IlW/vdZEVvA3mF0IxVGv+xkUHOA+vmk5q7VzcziHO+zGTAXrxioXRqp+EL1L3k5dJQQt WG3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdJLJ+S9bpIcmlnQzsU91TYhCh67LYTGQhjbyLbnloEg38a+P8m TMDZMOUsozYyPSUFVu/ZB4/dUQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226Jt0NnZNkpk00GAwlh8XcSzrxaplADKTNvO5QcNVvc6TpJQZQbbA9eaemDjtI0B/NFLj4yVw== X-Received: by 10.107.201.136 with SMTP id z130mr743787iof.257.1516661004872; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:19f4:bd85:8d70:2db3? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:19f4:bd85:8d70:2db3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q82sm4420638itb.7.2018.01.22.14.43.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Eric Voskuil X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C153) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:49:01 +0000 Cc: Chaofan Li Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain Voluntary Fork (Split) Proposal 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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:43:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All other things being equal, the money with the larger network is more usef= ul due to the cost of exchange between them, which can only be eliminated by= one absorbing the network of the other. According the Thiers=E2=80=99 law (= i.e. in the absence of currency controls), the more useful money will get us= ed. It is not the case that they will just become the same value. However, all other things are not equal. As a Bitcoin becomes more useful it= s use rises. Rising use implies rising fees, which in turn reduces usefulnes= s (stability property). While the better money prices out certain scenarios,= they remain viable in the lesser money. But eventually this will happen the= re as well, and the better money will absorb the lesser. The perpetual creation of new monies with exchange between them and the best= money (largest network) could certainly exist, but layering proposes an app= roach that doesn=E2=80=99t require all merchants to perpetually be accepting= different monies. It has a similar security trade-off (lower security for t= ransacting off of the better money), which is the source of decreased transa= ction cost. But without the exchange and overhead cost the layered money can= be better than multiple monies. Also, all splits are voluntary. e > On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:40, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > Without enforcement liquidity will diverge. =20 >=20 >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hi ZmnSCPxj >>=20 >> I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the same.=20 >> If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are the same , except some identifi= ers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no reason to have different value. I= f so, the market will adjust the value. >>=20 >> Also, the total supply can be the same. The amount in blockchains is jus= t some numbers. The wallet can display correct amount, according to the ide= ntifiers. >>=20 >> The voluntary split is also backward compatible with old version transact= ions, they can be treated as tx for both chains and included in both chains l= ater. For new version Tx after fork, some identifiers must be added , to mar= k the tx is for that chain only. The miners need to choose one chain to mine= . >>=20 >> After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically become a blockt= ree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 btc.10 btc.11 ), p= roviding even more capacity.=20 >>=20 >> Chaofan >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote= : >>> Good morning Chaofan Li, >>>=20 >>> What enforces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B? Or are the= y allowed to eventually diverge in price? If they diverge in price, how is t= hat different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin Gold, B= itcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on? >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> ZmnSCPxj >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >>>=20 >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> On January 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Here I propose a simple method to solve the scalability issue of blockc= hain. >>>> It is more like a financial trick rather than a technical solution.=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The technical part is very simple:=20 >>>> Split ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. t= wo blockchain A and B), voluntarily.=20 >>>> The two blockchains are the same except for some identifiers to disting= uish the two blockchains. >>>> The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one or interfe= red by the other blockchain ( considering so many hard forks in the last ye= ar, the replay protection should work in this situation) >>>> Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half value of original one bitc= oin.=20 >>>> Then, we have two almost same blockchains and the capacity of the origi= nal blockchain is doubled theoretically. >>>> When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randomly and= try to send through only one blockchain (If there is enough bitcoins) >>>> I think it is a possible solution, if the community realize no previo= usly owned asset value is lost. >>>>=20 >>>> The method is inspired by the stock split. >>>> When a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price hal= ves. >>>> The market capitalization remains the same. >>>> There is no dilution of every shareholders' total assets. >>>>=20 >>>> The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be c= hanged. >>>> If the total supply increases, the value of a single coin will be dilut= ed. >>>> That is true. >>>> However, the bad part of inflation of fiat money is not diluted value o= f every unit of fiat money caused by total supply increase. >>>> The problem is the increased supply is not delivered to everyone propor= tional to their previously owned money. >>>> The increased supply is released through debt expansion. >>>> The people that can borrow more money with low interest ratio (during Q= E, it was nearly 0) can invest and get profit. >>>> Or they don't even need to pay back the debt. The debt is left to gover= nment, which might never pay back the debt, and some get more money from go= vernment. >>>> Others' money are diluted. >>>>=20 >>>> With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitcoin assets wo= n't happen. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All other things being equa= l, the money with the larger network is more useful due to the cost of excha= nge between them, which can only be eliminated by one absorbing the network o= f the other. According the Thiers=E2=80=99 law (i.e. in the absence of curre= ncy controls), the more useful money will get used. It is not the case that t= hey will just become the same value.

However, all o= ther things are not equal. As a Bitcoin becomes more useful its use rises. R= ising use implies rising fees, which in turn reduces usefulness (stability p= roperty). While the better money prices out certain scenarios, they remain v= iable in the lesser money. But eventually this will happen there as well, an= d the better money will absorb the lesser.

The perp= etual creation of new monies with exchange between them and the best money (= largest network) could certainly exist, but layering proposes an approach th= at doesn=E2=80=99t require all merchants to perpetually be accepting differe= nt monies. It has a= similar security trade-off (lower security for transacting off of the bette= r money), which is the source of decreased transaction cost. But without the= exchange and overhead cost the layered money can be better than multiple mo= nies.

Also, all splits are voluntary.

e

On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:40, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.org> wrote:

Without enforcement liquidity will diverge.  
<= /div>

On Mon, Jan 2= 2, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi ZmnSCPxj

I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the sam= e. 
If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are th= e same , except some identifiers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no rea= son to have different value. If so, the market will adjust the value.
<= div dir=3D"auto">
Also, the total supply can be t= he same. The amount in blockchains  is just some numbers. The  wal= let can display correct amount, according to the identifiers.

The voluntary split is also backward comp= atible with old version transactions, they can be treated as tx for both cha= ins and included in both chains later. For new version Tx after fork, some i= dentifiers must be added , to mark the tx is for that chain only. The miners= need to choose one chain to mine.

After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically become a= blocktree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 btc.10 btc.= 11 ), providing even more capacity. 

Chaofan


On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at= 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
Good morning Chaofan Li,

What enf= orces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B?  Or are they allow= ed to eventually diverge in price?  If they diverge in price, how is th= at different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin Gold, B= itcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?

Regards= ,
ZmnSCPxj


<= div class=3D"m_-5954414837857291361m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960= 831protonmail_signature_block-proton">Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
-------- Original Message --------
On January 17= , 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:



Here I propose a= simple method to solve the scalability issue of blockchain.
I= t is more like a financial trick rather than a technical solution. 
=

The technical part is very simple: 
=
Split ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. t= wo blockchain A and B), voluntarily. 
The two blockchains= are the same except for some identifiers to distinguish the two blockchains= .
The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one= or interfered by the other blockchain (  considering so many hard fork= s in the last year, the replay protection should work in this situation)
=
Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half  value of origin= al one bitcoin. 
Then, we have two almost same blockchain= s and the capacity of the original blockchain is doubled theoretically.
<= /div>
When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randoml= y and try to send through only  one blockchain (If there is enough bitc= oins)
I think it is a  possible solution, if the communit= y realize  no previously owned asset value  is lost.

The method is inspired by the stock split.
Whe= n a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price halves.
=
The market capitalization remains the same.
There i= s no dilution of every shareholders' total assets.

<= div>The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be ch= anged.
If the total supply increases, the value of a single co= in will be diluted.
That is true.
However, the b= ad part of inflation of fiat money is not  diluted value of every unit o= f fiat money caused by total supply increase.
The problem is t= he increased supply is not delivered to everyone proportional to their previ= ously owned money.
The increased supply is released through de= bt expansion.
The people that can borrow more money with low i= nterest ratio (during QE, it was nearly 0) can invest  and get profit.<= br>
Or they don't even need to pay back the debt. The debt is left= to government, which might never pay back the debt, and some  get more= money from government.
Others' money are diluted.

With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitc= oin assets won't happen.







_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.<= wbr>linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/m= ailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


____________________= ___________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list<= br>bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
= --Apple-Mail-BC05D238-F634-4FB3-94B4-E65D04367560--