Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WSZva-0004Xw-KY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:34:38 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.48; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WSZvZ-0003vd-S0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:34:38 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gf5so879006lab.7 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.91.129 with SMTP id ce1mr2946222lbb.40.1395786871190; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.184.226 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:34:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5331EF3D.4000504@monetize.io> References: <20140322084702.GA13436@savin> <20140322150836.GG3180@nl.grid.coop> <20140322190825.GB6047@savin> <532DE7E6.4050304@monetize.io> <20140325122851.GA9818@savin> <5331EF3D.4000504@monetize.io> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:34:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WSZvZ-0003vd-S0 Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tree-chains preliminary summary X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:34:38 -0000 On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > More importantly, to your last point there is absolutely no way this > scheme can lead to inflation. The worst that could happen is theft of > coins willingly put into the pegging pool. But in no way is it possible > to inflate the coin supply. I don't think it would be entirely unfair to describe one of the possible ways a secondary coin becoming unbacked can play out as inflation=E2=80=94 after all, people have described altcoins as inflation. = In the worst case its no _worse_ inflation, I think, than an altcoin is=E2=80= =94 however. > I will look at your proposal in more depth. But I also think you should > give 2-way pegging a fair shake as pegging to side chains and private > accounting servers may eliminate the need. I think that chain geometries which improve the scale/decentralization trade-off are complementary. If PT's ideas here do amount to something that gives better scaling without ugly compromise I believe it would still be useful no matter how well the 2-way peg stuff works simply because scaling and decenteralization are both good things which we would pretty much always want more of...