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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CAAS2fgTovm7OtFFqdRYWDw5KxV+r5WD598JPnG5ydMYAs_gQWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:34:38 -0000
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> 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...
|
