Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26D2C7C for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:41:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63E342F6 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f71so18748193wmf.0 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:41:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=dgC0Gt1lkBZT3+vJ02uEKcPjbvdaG9dZxeq81arflpc=; b=CfvTaitcA7qpszQjHRx9lM13tkMzIPsfhqJzQPvOQEHKMGvdE1GqSLNEAk/CRfT5FQ qvD5JEazxMW1WI2qKVczyPQ37J/zRqpw5nZ9UO1Zfa45+RP4DtcxMXMtLaQpBiCKk3OL JDAUcmIqx4DMKQD7o/S97CkIMpm/LNrZLVd2ML+8ksK4jJg0ydEr+ASHQU+tLk8+io8Z RIyjwD079GMQ9Q/MKILg58dUpDQ9EhstvBhlXA/h40CJsfJLNkTqr1pFrcqkTwSDCEYR /GYnajT+9jgHhIDqtDBhQUi0QwQyYlZKLkLnKn+4u7JvSqGZ/o7iSgmkgZyU+Lw/ZIyd 8CJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dgC0Gt1lkBZT3+vJ02uEKcPjbvdaG9dZxeq81arflpc=; b=sKamjrHic+cvilOu4Dkfzkssa/P0YQTGeXKXWwCm4wLuZtwRn3ihwyZ9zScPU70rDj CdSwJJXwezgnPp2vRMAukb4wxXM+lqMixF+cWgeBpLCZKCknP7Ejgd6DqDdf/MYdGC7f H6cXI76H6WBuanKAA8FSEpYRu/CjzwlSjrAGCH1cPmWaThQ/zGAfDoxxXjYFAE3YMGby fYDUFvqXkyegLhWgQlqnCB3WnP8Vc3n5v/47nM6TrKpCR1nU9HJ5shgXS4z2BsFV7jLG EYlIATOI85RuotR2fWVQrzrooHAR0X6iWO5ESTR+nmE5IFa5DvliD9Yfh73UUi2GsQ2R UjHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdSYrkuVXOFuGvLHhgxKpvZpieYZUJMoCoBaTZCqibawMbZJsuJ /xXWxLS+Jhkl5hsiCJfE8jVtH/JZ7q8rXoEEWIKbR4I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225nPcd8qdqzsAxuf/StojOaKiRYZeMlvvv+g+dXlA4r9uGhWXY+haLibEYpFiIw0Yp/0fU+p2hGwG8TUkABhyk= X-Received: by 10.28.183.8 with SMTP id h8mr53976wmf.72.1516653658871; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:40:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.28.199 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:40:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:40:58 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: W048yuZZQh8lPywzxR7hqnQcaNc Message-ID: To: Chaofan Li , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1148f920959e8705636372bd" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 20:43:22 +0000 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 20:41:01 -0000 --001a1148f920959e8705636372bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Without enforcement liquidity will diverge. On Mon, Jan 22, 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 same. > 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. If so,= the > market will adjust the value. > > 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 > identifiers. > > The voluntary split is also backward compatible with old version > transactions, they can be treated as tx for both chains and included in > both chains later. For new version Tx after fork, some identifiers must b= e > 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 wrote: > >> Good morning Chaofan Li, >> >> 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 i= s >> that different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin >> Gold, Bitcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on? >> >> Regards, >> ZmnSCPxj >> >> >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On January 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Here I propose a simple method to solve the scalability issue of >> blockchain. >> It 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. tw= o >> 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 forks in = the >> last year, the replay protection should work in this situation) >> Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half value of original one >> bitcoin. >> Then, we have two almost same blockchains and the capacity of the >> original 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 >> previously owned asset value is lost. >> >> The method is inspired by the stock split >> . >> When a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price >> halves. >> The market capitalization remains the same. >> There is no dilution of every shareholders' total assets. >> >> The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be >> changed. >> If the total supply increases, the value of a single coin will be dilute= d. >> 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 >> proportional 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 QE= , >> 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 >> government, which might never pay back the debt, and some get more mone= y >> from government. >> Others' money are diluted. >> >> With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitcoin assets >> won't happen. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1148f920959e8705636372bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Without enforcement liquidity will diverge.=C2=A0=C2=A0

On Mon, J= an 22, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi ZmnSCPxj
=
I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be wor= th the same.=C2=A0
If the two chains=E2=80=99 algori= thms are the same , except some identifiers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they= have no reason to have different value. If so, the market will adjust the = value.

Also, the total s= upply can be the same. The amount in blockchains =C2=A0is just some numbers= . The =C2=A0wallet can display correct amount, according to the identifiers= .

The voluntary split is= also backward compatible with old version transactions, they can be treate= d as tx for both chains and included in both chains later. For new version = Tx after fork, some identifiers 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 Block= chain basically become a blocktree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. = btc.00 btc.01 btc.10 btc.11 ), providing even more capacity.=C2=A0

Chaofan


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

What enforces that bitcoin A is worth the same as = bitcoin B?=C2=A0 Or are they allowed to eventually diverge in price?=C2=A0 = If they diverge in price, how is that different from the current situation = with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?=

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj


Sent with Proton= Mail Secure Email.

-------- Original= Message --------
On January 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li vi= a bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=

=


Here I propose a simple method to solve = the scalability issue of blockchain.
It is more like a financ= ial trick rather than a technical solution.=C2=A0

<= div>The technical part is very simple:=C2=A0
Split ( hard for= k ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. two blockchain A and = B), voluntarily.=C2=A0
The two blockchains are the same excep= t for some identifiers to distinguish the two blockchains.
Th= e coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one or interfered by= the other blockchain (=C2=A0 considering so many hard forks in the last ye= ar, the replay protection should work in this situation)
Ever= yone get double bitcoins. Each has half=C2=A0 value of original one bitcoin= .=C2=A0
Then, we have two almost same blockchains and the cap= acity of the original blockchain is doubled theoretically.
Wh= en sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randomly and try t= o send through only=C2=A0 one blockchain (If there is enough bitcoins)
<= /div>
I think it is a=C2=A0 possible solution, if the community realize= =C2=A0 no previously owned asset value=C2=A0 is lost.

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

=
The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be = changed.
If the total supply increases, the value of a single= coin will be diluted.
That is true.
However, t= he bad part of inflation of fiat money is not=C2=A0 diluted value of every = unit of fiat money caused by total supply increase.
The probl= em is the increased supply is not delivered to everyone proportional to the= ir previously owned money.
The increased supply is released t= hrough debt expansion.
The people that can borrow more money = with low interest ratio (during QE, it was nearly 0) can invest=C2=A0 and g= et profit.
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 so= me=C2=A0 get more money from government.
Others' money ar= e diluted.

With voluntary split of bitcoin, di= lution of anyone's bitcoin assets won't happen.

<= /div>






_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1148f920959e8705636372bd--