summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c8/be9885445c4f2cdb016a82181944a3b98e2d42
blob: 5fb0c12fa987b503f63bb0df241b176573d70a75 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <contact@taoeffect.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A71EABC
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:43:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com
	[208.97.132.208])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B30A8
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D8F25C06A;
	Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=taoeffect.com; h=
	content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=
	taoeffect.com; bh=e5XVJ1/dp7eBF5U622qvUIayiX0=; b=vqQVQdbRrVGile
	Y++jZqkKXfGULZbeKuN/vLJ9vFcAvT8ST4nncyBteNabFndxJq+X6KOJXFzxauiG
	9yEIogvr+4LADs4reslRCdg+9Ho0cc3Bhf+dM+9lg0DQYCQGZ3uqMF/WaXma+6MY
	6hNrxsMSWApW6qER43N1fXL9ecBkI=
Received: from [10.14.129.172] (unknown [107.72.97.149])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: support@taoeffect.com)
	by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3843E25C062; 
	Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=cp932
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A421)
In-Reply-To: <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:43:17 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:46:26 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:43:19 -0000

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-withdr=
aw you mint on another chain.

I will not respond to any more emails unless they=81fre from core developers=
. Gotta run.

--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing wi=
th the NSA.

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the bit=
coin 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 bit=
coin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make you whole). Why w=
ould they agree to this?
> --
> hudon
>=20
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
>>=20
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device.
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing=
 with the NSA.
>>=20
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?=20
>>>=20
>>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Sheesh.
>>>=20
>>> Whereas in Drivechain users are forced to give up their coins to a singl=
e group for whatever sidechains they interact with, the generic sharding alg=
o lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trus=
t (the miners of the various sidechains).
>>>=20
>>> Drivechain offers objectively worse security.
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile device.
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharin=
g with the NSA.
>>>=20
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> I think this response speaks for itself.
>>>>=20
>>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the se=
mantics of the word "burn".
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The "burning" applies to the original coins you had.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent to=
 the amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from =81\ as state=
d in the OP.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> If you don't like the word "burn", pick another one.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> --
>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also shar=
ing with the NSA.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:=

>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> It's a two-way peg.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> There's nothing preventing transfers back to the main chain.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> They work in the exact same manner.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sha=
ring with the NSA.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:=

>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parame=
ters for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfe=
r to succeed.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals=
) I promised that better scaling proposals =81\ that do not sacrifice Bitcoi=
n's security =81\ would come along.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have decided to just send of=
f this email with what I have, because I'm unlikely to have time to write up=
 a detailed proposal.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> The idea is very simple (and by no means novel*), and I'm sure other=
s have mentioned either exactly it, or similar ideas (e.g. burning coins) be=
fore.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including B=
itcoin.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to Chain=
 B".
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and create a minting transactio=
n on Chain B. The details of how to ensure that coins do not get lost needs t=
o be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure ou=
t those details.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify that s=
aid 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 other c=
oins (if for some reason it needs to).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol as m=
ost of the verification is done client-side.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our ownership=
 of our coins to miners to get scale.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which ca=
se, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Greg Slepak
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sh=
aring with the NSA.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20