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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6D8C077D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C161820523
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id G+PLaZ1AzwUf
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:54:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142DB20198
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:54:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:54:50 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1579269294;
bh=QY7NjJDD0GCsfU9anwUb7BhUq3kPb6Wgh2Pa5u4TZtk=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=w9UD6xzAsZl0Sy05pgVS/Ek8Qmz/jQNijrWDEOD+sobwTAxupgAWU0mpSmhJ/8ake
tosHNzIT56B/wG05uIi/EQqX+zDpDmzfUtucrMCCS3R6lztuB1zMS7Mt8GqN2m40hN
8EVKtej95KcIYpa6kP5LFCokLtGJUsHOSQ2JvT/o=
To: Robin Linus <robinlinus@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <lUnYaQ3Ubk82XnFs9TFXpsjzPGqS7jAGWJNIqOPKmchkAGANZ5JmrErRs_29HVNdm_KlMXuP6l45TYBglItGDZ1Szefz7FazxuBG52lOprQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <utxb-_hCi1ABBK86Z5qAkOH0q6RiyiAg1UXzCxgy1usYS2iVZjwIdXjEfnXXenqkMVtJ8omdyUw9kf9BTQXghTnWSvOoTqO7m3SMUPZURR0=@protonmail.com>
References: <kAPCabG_c_AiGFYny48dO7ZT-MUgINLLoiKdzElSN8IrRej9szT3t9s0FvAHihraSo0CftPwFjU_pxvKuu9SziIJFt2JZxO3rdpS3-CMKzg=@protonmail.com>
<ILtIOT_2wq-ld0mk5kPev5mw8RQD6pgzSF_EPuY1PE-mdsy8eJqsCaSU-zIyNZw-4W4p5JtLJs5d451PnHvQly-3V1q225bKmdanMZVOmGE=@protonmail.com>
<0RSAH-PjblJV6Q7TGosFHAEdc9QGauCQ_knCzMwcoGdW4Qt49ts-egDkIwM-X_f0RjsPMquwdnmB6spunH379ICEAJQgUH7R1SE8CuZs7pI=@protonmail.com>
<6JaReZbjL3U0QrirtiCdgk107cNmQHiLbbJIDctf8uGUiqJOLvZwRLLPUQXAjzfAqRQBpaqtytcKhq1hvtSDwwaKGthwy40SWHDRnTpBkJA=@protonmail.com>
<6pcznun9_VnOIV7D28YeCiWqSLtPnN7syJvgGVp_VIo_DAZyp2mDYZQxg6IT5dJagroU-TKgUUjLrJm12TlbhLCzwjftY6_OhIB3ej6o44E=@protonmail.com>
<beLVDOWDR2iV7hnmLpR4bBal2QWxAYqayzw8r9CRc5afhyqZjGIQZQZEerwIIXcmRC9KFigFDFu5_CU4vxoeLFxhNrDGUaZy44_JOs3asmk=@protonmail.com>
<utxb-_hCi1ABBK86Z5qAkOH0q6RiyiAg1UXzCxgy1usYS2iVZjwIdXjEfnXXenqkMVtJ8omdyUw9kf9BTQXghTnWSvOoTqO7m3SMUPZURR0=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Coins: A trustless sidechain protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:55:02 -0000
Good morning Robin,
> Hi Joachim,=C2=A0
>
> > if anyone can halt operation of a sidechain with just tiny investment.
>
> It'll be impossible to halt a healthy chain with a tiny investment becaus=
e halting a chain costs you at least as much as the side chain rewards. The=
"invested time value per block" of all honest stakers converges against th=
e block reward. If imbalanced, someone will stake more bitcoin to get the c=
heap sidechain rewards. Exactly the same market mechanism secures PoW.
>
> For a decentralized consensus via resource consumption it doesn't matter =
which limited resource you consume. The only relevant factor is that the va=
lue of the block reward is sufficient to motivate people to invest a lot of=
that resource. To motivate them to invest so much that an attacker cannot =
invest more. Independently of the resource, the amount of honestly invested=
resources converges against the value of the block reward.
Also known as MC =3D MR.
This is in fact the core of the argument *against* this kind of global micr=
ochain system: each individual chain will either:
* Pay ridiculously high fees per transaction, because the microchain has a =
small number of transactions because that is the entire *point* of microcha=
ins.
* Pay insufficient fees per block, making it easy to attack, meaning the se=
curity of the chain has to be centralized around a few actors anyway (e.g. =
checkpoints, like what every altcoin implements), which is not much better =
than the custodial case you are complaining against.
In order to have a sidechain that is as secure as Bitcoin today, you need:
* Sidechain fees to cover both *current Bitcoin fees* plus *current Bitcoin=
block rewards*.
Consequently, the sidechain has to have either *more* users than Bitcoin to=
day, or *higher* fees than Bitcoin today.
Unless of course you propose to have the sidechain issue its own coin, in w=
hich case it is not much more than an altcoin.
Still, the real-world value of the total block rewards for that altcoin wil=
l have to match the real-world value of the total block rewards of Bitcoin =
in order to have security even approaching Bitcoin.
>
> Thus, I would even go further with my claim and argue that the security o=
f bitcoin-backed PoS is exactly as strong as PoW because in both cases thei=
r security is proportionally to the dollar value of their block reward. PoS=
sidechain security depends only on a sufficient userbase and thus, block r=
eward value.
Only if the consumed resource matches what is consumed under PoW.
Otherwise it is not much better than a low-PoW altcoin, i.e. easily attacka=
ble unless it centralizes around the developers.
I understand the desire to smoothen the experience of onboarding new users =
to Bitcoin.
But this path is not much better than the custodial solutions you are tryin=
g to avoid anyway.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
