1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
|
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 B1FE3EC3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:45:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.136])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3C0623
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:45:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:45:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1554720333;
bh=XSp2u9bnz89+TKT8xp9DTLu0o6NLZ2W7Eg18SwqN3Iw=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=mKu5uuc1FFUXY8U7Glu4sQUbJTpOkqZivQqL3IJVHrWwS+fMES7rxDKwshq7RKM5B
i76SUikuboHQsADsFHkxBPLzta9mE8JfaPOxENTo2Vqej7oCOeOMIMeaWdSyGvG15I
ibkkE/+yd01fgj7jeBcMeF3gXGgScQSmurZA0mKs=
To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <GkSgHQYXGen75-KP_N2VbK1EmY5DSDe0sncJBU77l6_2xdYhh9Yw5rQSgtPuwXJnMlnA0j195hkMfhnxhGkMERa3kXXW6KvR5qt88oSNGvY=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <392367fe-b1d7-7d47-01de-ebb4b7142ead@gmail.com>
References: <IAFPSZAn6TYt348fmmnPznQ_ApG7pa48eMjzTgrjuVAt6fS1tNieRxlcIXyTATy2vjZCUn4wVQcsyDlyb_3Ip46BstFRikB95-lKewAZBEE=@protonmail.com>
<d1cfa2e9-69e4-ee02-4c10-23b2b1a30e00@gmail.com>
<TF9WSGU6njZqgOyJF5-m1gYMwfgUCStjUV-IpRuX67w1Z6jL2Tdarr6PCOUO1vFb9hz_jWnbe_5Tg8E_a9iyPeXIY_iJUf9YN8u9xB4SC90=@protonmail.com>
<392367fe-b1d7-7d47-01de-ebb4b7142ead@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=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URI_NOVOWEL 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, 08 Apr 2019 11:13:04 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:45:37 -0000
Good morning Aymeric,
> Hi,
>
> Apparently you are not a fan of ethereum, as far as I can tell ethereum
> sidechains look like a mess with stupid tokens/transactions flooding the
> network while they are completely centralized, but some bitcoin
> sidechains can easily compete with this too, like Tether, don't even
> understand how anyone can give some credit to that stuff the way it is
> implemented, and if bitcoin fails that would be the same as for ethereum
I prefer to be more precise in my terminology.
Colored coins are not the same as sidechains, and there are colored coins a=
nd then there are colored coins.
This mechanism does not propose some change in colored coins.
An important aspect of colored coins is that one can foist them on somebody=
else to extract things of real value from them, but this mechanism is more=
strongly for a fixed set of participants.
I strongly suspect that Bitcoin will outlast Ethereum, but that is rather n=
ot very related to this topic.
> Most likely everyone would agree if the escrow disappears, but not sure
> at all, let's imagine 1 to N put 10K on the table for a game, they
> update the states and at the end N wins everything, N is rich and don't
> care finally if the others cheaters have their coins locked (and to lose
> 10K), same with setting up a new escrow to resolve the conflict
>
Indeed.
Still, the option to do so exists, and sometimes all that is needed for hum=
ans to do the right thing, is to be given the option to do so.
> I think that you should highlight this (and what private key corresponds
> to E + h(E | s) * G, not sure it's trivial for everybody), probably a
> way to get this more decentralized is to reward the escrows (what is the
> interest here for people to run a smart contract platform?)
I assumed both were obvious, but I suppose a few more words about those wou=
ld not be amiss.
>
> For lightning, maybe it's a question of wording, I consider it as a
> sidechain AND methods that can be used by other sidechains, as well as
> the others you quoted, even if only two people in the world use
> lightning, it is still decentralized, because it sustains itself alone
Again, I prefer precision in my terminology.
For me, a sidechain is a blockchain of some sort.
In particular, a kind of Merklized singly-linked list containing representa=
tions of transformations of state, is how I define blockchain to be.
No such Merklized singly-linked list exists in Lightning Network, thus I do=
not consider it, "blockchain".
And thus I do not consider it "sidechain", as a sidechain is a blockchain.
Current LN does use "shachains" by Rusty, but shachains are not Merklized s=
ingly-linked lists, but are instead a kind of inverse mountain range struct=
ure.
Still, one might consider both federated sidechains and Lightning Network t=
o have a "federated" offchain structure.
This is because the coins on the Bitcoin blockchain are locked to a multisi=
gnature and activity is not recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain.
However, in LN, each channel is a 2-member federation (you and a counterpar=
ty) and the mechanism in LN requires consensus (2-of-2) rather than a quoru=
m (m-of-n).
This greatly increases the security of LN: the owner of funding on an LN ch=
annel can always refuse to sign an update if the other member of the federa=
tion is taken over.
Compare this to the quorum that typical federations have, where takeover of=
a sufficient quorum is enough to steal funds from the remaining federation=
.
https://zmnscpxj.github.io/offchain/safety.html
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
