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 1108E3229
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2019 01:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch (mail-40135.protonmail.ch
	[185.70.40.135])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C41E76D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2019 01:42:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 01:42:47 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
	s=default; t=1547862168;
	bh=jArRcApFV96u8OkuKfm902P0aA8a2Uef52QlBfKvV3Q=;
	h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
	From;
	b=QmjeV55xeU5Jl4Z0ajSqe5NtNZDxh8u0XiSSl/GXcg6q4ygHkFI0S6uKeMwZ12oqB
	ji5UV3fbEMkYZ74mQVZPg/fkEkTyA0wMxB4uf6021iVQwIzagdfArEwhZsnisAGmTN
	z2ng8P91q2UuToxDwHPMHIixUGGtAbfl9rGIhtsc=
To: Matt Bell <mappum@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <BTyUDt_7oOQmFj_V61w2eUJ7rfi-eOuNphy5nN0xNAhY4sUHnR2-0U9m-ZEKip4YjFi2-hGBtucvFv7nCTVo3aBxZ94VQCa1Kx2pP_zgdxU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACV3+OU1ynRuR2SioW+O+CAp5M7ZQA6af_hEY5JZCVrXpqjtKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACV3+OU1ynRuR2SioW+O+CAp5M7ZQA6af_hEY5JZCVrXpqjtKQ@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: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 15:43:58 +0000
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 01:42:53 -0000

Good morning Matt,

It seems to me much more interesting if the stakes used to weigh voting pow=
er are UTXOs on the Bitcoin blockchain.
This idea is what I call "mainstake"; rather than a blockchain having its o=
wn token that is self-attesting (which is insecure).
It seems to me, naively, that the same script you propose here can be used =
for mainstake.

For instance, the sidechain network might accept potential stakers on the m=
ainchain, if the staker proves the existence of a mainchain transaction who=
se 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 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 6:59 AM, Matt Bell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I have been working on a design for Bitcoin sidechains using the Tendermi=
nt BFT consensus protocol, which is commonly used to build proof-of-stake n=
etworks (Cosmos is the notable one).
>
> The design ends up being very similar to Blockstream's Liquid sidechain, =
since Tendermint consensus is not far off from Liquid's "strong federation"=
 consensus.
>
> Any feedback about improvements or critical flaws would be greatly apprec=
iated. The design document is here: https://github.com/mappum/bitcoin-peg/b=
lob/master/bitcoinPeg.md (that repo also contains a simplified implementati=
on of this sidechain design).
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Matt Bell