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
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
|
Return-Path: <benkloester@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84166A84
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:04:05 +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 E4A224D5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 196so18049671wma.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=sZnmPwhyrQMTF8ScRr9tZHkTjFpQG3EjFRiEzTGBaRE=;
b=qMVgIJlJKeDkVLDDTcSWHIibvpwy0cefMFzZMPUC/bDmFKyA7XA/QqCqX/1MowgFms
cEbjxGlLvQJdgIggElPQGrkPYDjmEOjtcsWva01Lom/JDaO6uOsQ2ZsX8mgpDyBiUU/w
m8gpOGSSs3THC6N6NqrSja0rzvwzrsEsBDDfyuWydD297rmUkSOlQ9K3bKZfYlKyEuxO
tE11QeXMx8Boetvin0r+wBWv6llZ9S/3C4jyGQwzBfRq8PhIEBT8AFv+MIke7rVDhB1k
ubGM/T7D1ndtmj7P+Sr2y9LhoI87Otx9Xumz7cmVNEaT3GTFTPUEjSPHwFkC3e2zn+GT
tZsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=sZnmPwhyrQMTF8ScRr9tZHkTjFpQG3EjFRiEzTGBaRE=;
b=o/oa3I5Dclv8JzXGykBW676cw3fFmo84smJhn4k4/yD2Tk6qiohyU7OxrkDapBRgbM
dCh34ctg3QLiaO/7GfBCOs+1IECh+pUfslAYQY0keCKv5xWuWfc+zPqIrAbviT4avVFM
ox7TjxT5arTGxzgeTefVjgDfO5N4pYp+8PjB9tTkcd99kiL6Cr8q1xJPSE/62tYj5w4S
uBalIem/dOhBUD1XkL5m639DrmNUXOb1fJuIte+MADYr/HtBP+/y3omZmMtM1KmoNyzn
1MvFHmOsH7/1riSnrRlI1Q3IezftGx6+G/Rx8GS6cWGnu4ry+Lze18w4Bil4yzFiJIbO
iBdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaW+Pmvp7G7aaPKFzRurUR//OFuzINQYFrB1plVQ4MW+yuYNzK0E
J7rq3JHhCCUH1dUEdh4Sbd34Px6l0g3I3D+zHVo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCyAawtN57rVMAAZc+PWvi8cnxugM8FClDe6eK0XM3bb+bVQ6Db6S+Whw+38EZE32+7pRWAWibgSlHk6Un42EI=
X-Received: by 10.28.166.143 with SMTP id p137mr11310160wme.149.1507687442408;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.143.102 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C216A90B-D08D-4B89-98EE-761ED303F180@taoeffect.com>
References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com>
<CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
<55CAABF4-4FB8-4230-8E51-014C1D347D72@taoeffect.com>
<CA+XQW1i-3dfRGr2vy=_P0BuXNbnoR_OmmOGGOmCcNEgkZeT_gg@mail.gmail.com>
<FBD96A02-243E-4E09-9204-EC90DE5EE576@taoeffect.com>
<daf438d1-7cca-aa0f-6bf7-3eef0d765d49@gmail.com>
<B79CD106-A06E-4AF1-B67E-6DFE557468F8@taoeffect.com>
<CAF5CFkg71g5vTCQ3rcbN+7Cjx_B3z7NT78Ug6a6S=KiSS8yo-A@mail.gmail.com>
<B822901D-C074-4987-B793-2A83C8C83EAF@taoeffect.com>
<F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
<C216A90B-D08D-4B89-98EE-761ED303F180@taoeffect.com>
From: Ben Kloester <benkloester@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:04:01 +1100
Message-ID: <CANgJ=T8SoAmFk=HkuJJWi28hWsSp6taYH+tfyKegweoWzcy3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1285e87003f1055b3bd63e"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:05:19 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized
scaling without Miners owning our BTC
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:04:05 -0000
--94eb2c1285e87003f1055b3bd63e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't get it. At the moment, the number of Bitcoin is fixed (at 21
million) by the geometric decay of the block reward.
Adding any other means of creating coins besides the existing block reward,
or altering the block reward schedule, is extremely likely to be seen as
messing with fixed supply. And not adding another method to create coins
wouldn't work - because then redemptions would have to come out of miner's
block reward, which I don't imagine they're going to share just because you
ask.
The only way you might convince users that adding a second way to mint
coins is not messing with fixed supply, is if there is some kind of proof
that the number of coins being minted is accounted for by past burnt coins.
We could call this 'regeneration'. But then you also need a way to prevent
double-regeneration, in which the same burnt coins are used as proof twice.
And you would also need per-sidechain accounting, so that you can't just
regenerate burnt coins that were originally burnt for sidechain A when all
you have is coins on sidechain B. But where to put all this logic? Building
a system that enforces the accounting for sidechains into Bitcoin, as Lucas
pointed out, is not much different to just building the sidechain itself
directly into Bitcoin.
And if you did assemble all that, what you have anyway is a two way peg,
which I suspect will be isomorphic to the very sidechain proposals you seem
to be criticising/attempting to do better than.
*Ben Kloester*
On 11 October 2017 at 07:43, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What?
>
> That is not correct.
>
> There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.
>
> The only difference is what chain it is on.
>
> It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you
> burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.
>
> I will not respond to any more emails unless they=E2=80=99re from core de=
velopers.
> Gotta run.
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device.
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
> with the NSA.
>
> > On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the
> bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then
> stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your
> amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make
> you whole). Why would they agree to this?
> > --
> > hudon
> >
> >> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my mobile device.
> >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
> >>
> >>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Sheesh.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas in Drivechain users are forced to give up their coins to a
> single group for whatever sidechains they interact with, the generic
> sharding algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group th=
ey
> want to trust (the miners of the various sidechains).
> >>>
> >>> Drivechain offers objectively worse security.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my mobile device.
> >>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this response speaks for itself.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Paul,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the
> semantics of the word "burn".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "burning" applies to the original coins you had.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent
> to the amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from =E2=80=
=95 as
> stated in the OP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you don't like the word "burn", pick another one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Paul,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a two-way peg.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's nothing preventing transfers back to the main chain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They work in the exact same manner.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Greg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses
> parameters for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-mai=
n
> transfer to succeed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear list,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like
> proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals =E2=80=95 that do not=
sacrifice
> Bitcoin's security =E2=80=95 would come along.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have decided to just send
> off this email with what I have, because I'm unlikely to have time to wri=
te
> up a detailed proposal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The idea is very simple (and by no means novel*), and I'm sure
> others have mentioned either exactly it, or similar ideas (e.g. burning
> coins) before.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, includin=
g
> Bitcoin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to
> Chain B".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and create a minting
> transaction on Chain B. The details of how to ensure that coins do not ge=
t
> lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this lis=
t
> can figure out those details.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify tha=
t
> said action took place, and therefore accept the "newly minted" coins on =
B
> as valid.
> >>>>>>> - Users client software now also knows where to look for the othe=
r
> coins (if for some reason it needs to).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol
> as most of the verification is done client-side.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our
> ownership of our coins to miners to get scale.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which
> case, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Greg Slepak
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing with the NSA.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--94eb2c1285e87003f1055b3bd63e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I don't get it. At the moment, the number of Bitcoin i=
s fixed (at 21 million) by the geometric decay of the block reward.<div><br=
></div><div>Adding any other means of creating coins besides the existing b=
lock reward, or altering the block reward schedule, is extremely likely to =
be seen as messing with fixed supply. And not adding another method to crea=
te coins wouldn't work - because then redemptions would have to come ou=
t of miner's block reward, which I don't imagine they're going =
to share just because you ask.</div><div><br></div><div>The only way you mi=
ght convince users that adding a second way to mint coins is not messing wi=
th fixed supply, is if there is some kind of proof that the number of coins=
being minted is accounted for by past burnt coins. We could call this '=
;regeneration'. But then you also need a way to prevent double-regenera=
tion, in which the same burnt coins are used as proof twice.=C2=A0</div><di=
v><br></div><div>And you would also need per-sidechain accounting, so that =
you can't just regenerate burnt coins that were originally burnt for si=
dechain A when all you have is coins on sidechain B. But where to put all t=
his logic? Building a system that enforces the accounting for sidechains in=
to Bitcoin, as Lucas pointed out, is not much different to just building th=
e sidechain itself directly into Bitcoin.</div><div><br></div><div>And if y=
ou did assemble all that, what you have anyway is a two way peg, which I su=
spect will be isomorphic to the very sidechain proposals you seem to be cri=
ticising/attempting to do better than.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_=
signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><p><b>Ben Kloester</b><br><sp=
an style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"></span></p></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 11 October 2017 at 07:43, Tao Effect via =
bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>=
></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What?<br>
<br>
That is not correct.<br>
<br>
There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.<br>
<br>
The only difference is what chain it is on.<br>
<br>
It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you burn-to-withd=
raw you mint on another chain.<br>
<br>
I will not respond to any more emails unless they=E2=80=99re from core deve=
lopers. Gotta run.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
--<br>
Sent from my mobile device.<br>
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing w=
ith the NSA.<br>
<br>
</span>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon <<a href=3D"mailto:=
jameshudon@gmail.com">jameshudon@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned=
the bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and =
then stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your=
amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make y=
ou whole). Why would they agree to this?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">> --<br>
> hudon<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">><br>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Sent from my mobile device.<br>
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also =
sharing with the NSA.<br>
>><br>
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe <<a href=3D"mailto:c=
ryptaxe@gmail.com">cryptaxe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. =
Why?<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev&quo=
t; <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Shees=
h.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Whereas in Drivechain users are forced to give up their coins =
to a single group for whatever sidechains they interact with, the generic s=
harding algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they =
want to trust (the miners of the various sidechains).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Drivechain offers objectively worse security.<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Sent from my mobile device.<br>
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable a=
lso sharing with the NSA.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think this response speaks for itself.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:<br>
>>>>> Hi Paul,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting=
stuck on the semantics of the word "burn".<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The "burning" applies to the original coins =
you had.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coin=
s, equivalent to the amount you "burned" on the chain you're =
transferring from =E2=80=95 as stated in the OP.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If you don't like the word "burn", pick =
another one.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfo=
rtable also sharing with the NSA.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc <<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com">truthcoin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins=
.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:contact@taoeffect.com">contact@taoeffect.com</a>> wr=
ote:<br>
>>>>>> Paul,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It's a two-way peg.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> There's nothing preventing transfers back to t=
he main chain.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> They work in the exact same manner.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>>>> Greg<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not c=
omfortable also sharing with the NSA.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc <<a=
href=3D"mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com">truthcoin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does,=
if one chooses parameters for the drivechain that make it impossible for a=
ny side-to-main transfer to succeed.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvant=
ages.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Paul<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via b=
itcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> Dear list,<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Dri=
vechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals =E2=80=95 =
that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security =E2=80=95 would come along.<br=
>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have d=
ecided to just send off this email with what I have, because I'm unlike=
ly to have time to write up a detailed proposal.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> The idea is very simple (and by no means novel=
*), and I'm sure others have mentioned either exactly it, or similar id=
eas (e.g. burning coins) before.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all bl=
ockchains, including Bitcoin.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A ar=
e going to be sent to Chain B".<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and creat=
e a minting transaction on Chain B. The details of how to ensure that coins=
do not get lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the fol=
ks on this list can figure out those details.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all ver=
y easily verify that said action took place, and therefore accept the "=
;newly minted" coins on B as valid.<br>
>>>>>>> - Users client software now also knows where t=
o look for the other coins (if for some reason it needs to).<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification t=
o the Bitcoin protocol as most of the verification is done client-side.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> It is fully decentralized, and there's no =
need to give our ownership of our coins to miners to get scale.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> My sincere apologies if this has been brought =
up before (in which case, I would be very grateful for a link to the propos=
al).<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>>>>> Greg Slepak<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledge=
r.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are n=
ot comfortable also sharing with the NSA.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> ______________________________<wbr>___________=
______<br>
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>>>>>>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>>>>>>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/m=
ailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://l=
ists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfounda=
tion.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
>> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c1285e87003f1055b3bd63e--
|
