Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC8F5A84 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:50:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1738455 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u138so109240wmu.4 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:16 -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=gzbuLgeOetO8DCk1LxZe1bGYsJhd6yWWpyJfP1y42tA=; b=oF8ONEjnPNoEzv1SQEBibtH9Bul3/pN+4/0bnx67jAA/rJlUAQiZBCTrNaIR9ApmJd Yzeb+G49dyZh5MDWz1yOGMHNbOlDhTuH2qFTxhd0mqBwXeZwvchlzZpJjf0wY+D0rUoP A/AVA3yuY71FvWp7HjylJ7fx1r4hTVa5kEny1bZFwwLhMS0Q7/ksloL4bwBfiGJI/mNG 9d1J6zj1oUs9d39nPRBFTelP1qMF74KS1fbeIZxF7Y7ky6wKrg2abquvMWqrgfYLEroP BvVHBi+PGkGE6GYcui0zOlD8KiSIA+xHgoog3h7a0mL+1zJSr+uEfhPB5d3ydh7ar8Ev wz8Q== 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=gzbuLgeOetO8DCk1LxZe1bGYsJhd6yWWpyJfP1y42tA=; b=eqMTawMEMpntxccBw6vTeLEJ0nvuziEnr1cPi7theULYw82nehCkAuQjnEHqyU5tld /QLUS/mpksYK1TBmknsJ06ttgkAeufQDUNSuy2cAix15w+/UThUCffvQnSh1LSk5vH0j QodGdERiQUcSUT7IS5ul0ftevTttBrAeeWyZMHoTkqBovNoolEwNF1a4V1xyTcGI/CTb zmXoMHWC960kTxJpz+QANTzJBEGzV9POeHcyPFdjpuXIf2UNBf5QKNI2/RFtTesWEV/B hP81g0tJ7S3mdMVwCD+yEu6SpP7GO0f/Wp7YiqxGwnq5QcMGDXXgkXdTHGZb2Zc1JXH8 M2qA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVTRzNfQIktVDCSCVnZFuuILoZORHvOZ22zInTu2t0ho6SIV1Vt hlqBOFVy1Zax3gc5IlFuL6kwBu5VoIYa+luuE++EXg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDA/mDmvOOdAwN+8jWUIERC/lWnk0uo3lSao40q8J2YBlTt+WFNoTttJQkWKPN47JOvE/iYHZDc99gnDNYARaI= X-Received: by 10.223.142.244 with SMTP id q107mr12731575wrb.208.1507665014772; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.196.79 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.196.79 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com> <55CAABF4-4FB8-4230-8E51-014C1D347D72@taoeffect.com> From: CryptAxe Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:13 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Tao Effect Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f50e8a57220055b369d46" 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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:52:06 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:50:18 -0000 --f403045f50e8a57220055b369d46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 al= go > lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to tru= st > (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 th= e > amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from =E2=80=94 as st= ated 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 wrote: > > Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. > > On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" 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 sharin= g with >> the NSA. >> >> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc 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-main 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=94 that do not sacrifice B= itcoin's >> security =E2=80=94 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 write = 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, including >> 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 get lost needs t= o >> be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure = out >> those details. >> >> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify that 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 other 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 sharin= g 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 > > --f403045f50e8a57220055b369d46 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existe= nce. Why?=C2=A0

On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Is that what passes for a technical argumen= t these days? Sheesh.

Whereas in Drivechain users a= re 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 coin= s, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust (the miners of the various s= idechains).

Drivechain offers objectively worse se= curity.

--Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortab= le also sharing with the NSA.

On Oct 10, 2017, a= t 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org> wrote:

=20 =20 =20 =20
I think this respon= se speaks for itself.

On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
=20 =20
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=94 as stated in the OP.

If you don't like the word "burn", pick another on= e.

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing=C2=A0with 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=C2=A0with 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-main 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= =94 that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security =E2=80= =94 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 hav= e time to write up a detailed proposal.

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) before.

This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including 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 get lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out those details.

- Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify that said action took place, and therefore accept the "newl= y minted" coins on B as vali= d.
- Users client software now also knows where to look for the other 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=C2=A0with the NSA.


________________________________= _______________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.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

--f403045f50e8a57220055b369d46--