MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALTsm7jeqQUhL+REvzBQNUtSMd9i9oVeXEkdCuUuGOpz_V=b8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTsm7gG6bWJd=HQ5XJTYxWbxNPwZDC6Xefsh_zSAQhk89A4VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7ir61RCfGSf8r71+soDJH+W9n_dPORS+2+ARKEzhpnXWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7ii4PZ_of=YPpB2x_nMGGTFrDW8OGOx6LehfyQD22JMYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7jOPr17d1syFZ9wsYAntcUss+tcrHU_vQKC2TEZ1ong9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7i=ThDfv2uquHAxvLgQ497oVkYhYF5gNFcv3RxEkDVr5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7ijaK+fWk9jKUMD0MGqwAeSYwc3XOyGOs8AYZ9AYL_uGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTsm7jeqQUhL+REvzBQNUtSMd9i9oVeXEkdCuUuGOpz_V=b8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:02:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OXJJ=BQhYmjLyq2x8xSwAi5j0cBOvqe3um8_QjV9fSLDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merge of protocol
Precedence: list

--f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

If the communities behind two coins wanted to merge, it would be possible,
but difficulty and risky.

It represents a hard fork on both chains.  Not only does each coin's
community need to agree, the two communities need to agree with each other.

They would both have to agree the join point.  The merge block would have 2
parents.


A <- B <- C <- D
                 \
                    J1 <- J2 <- J3 <- J4
                 /
w <- x <- y <- z


In the above example, A, B, C, D is one chain and w, x, y, z is the other.
They combine and then J1, J2, J3, J4 is the combined chain.

Since block "J1" has 2 parents, it commits to the state of the 2 legacy
chains.  If you have coins in each chain at D or z, then you get coins in
the joint chain.

They would both need to agree on what the rules are for their new chain.
Since it is a (double) hard fork, they can do pretty much anything they
want.

The combined chain could continue as before.  It would be a combined chain
and each user's coin total would be unaffected.  The advantage of doing
that is that it causes minimum economic disruption to users.  The mining
power for both chains would be applied to the joint chain, so they combine
their security.

Alternatively, they could agree on an exchange rate.  Users would be given
joint-coins in exchange for their coins on the 2 legacy chains.

For something like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin, they could have a
re-combination rule.  1 Bitcoin-Recombined = 1 BTC + 1 BCH.  That doesn't
seem very likely though and also there are more BCH coins than BTC coins.

It might be worth moving this to bitcoin-discuss, since it isn't really
Bitcoin protocol discussion.


Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Ilan Oh via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 2017 was fork year,
>
> Is it technically possible to merge two protocoles ? And thus bringing the
> strength of both into one resulting coin.
>
> I would not be surprized to see a lot of altcoin wanting to merge with
> bitcoin or between them, especially with LN current development, if it is
> possible,
>
> If anyone has ideas or ressources on this,
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>If the communities behind two coins wa=
nted to merge, it would be possible, but difficulty and risky.<br><br></div=
>It  represents a hard fork on both chains.=C2=A0 Not only does each coin&#=
39;s community need to agree, the two communities need to agree with each o=
ther.<br><br></div>They would both have to agree  the join point.=C2=A0 The=
 merge block would have 2 parents.<br><br><br></div><span style=3D"font-fam=
ily:monospace,monospace">A &lt;- B &lt;- C &lt;- D <br>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0 \<br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:monospace,monospace">=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 J1 &lt;- J2 &lt;- J3 &lt;- J4<br></=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:monospace,monospace">=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0 /<br></span></div><span style=3D"font-family:monospace,monospa=
ce">w &lt;- x &lt;- y &lt;- z<br></span><div><div><div><span style=3D"font-=
family:monospace,monospace"><br></span><br></div><div>In the above example,=
 A, B, C, D is one chain and w, x, y, z is the other.=C2=A0 They combine an=
d then J1, J2, J3, J4 is the combined chain.<br><br></div><div>Since block =
&quot;J1&quot; has 2 parents, it commits to the state of the 2 legacy chain=
s.=C2=A0 If you have coins in each chain at D or z, then you get coins in t=
he joint chain.<br></div><div><br></div><div>They would both need to agree =
on what the rules are for their new chain.=C2=A0 Since it is a (double) har=
d fork, they can do pretty much anything they want.<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>The combined chain could continue as before.=C2=A0 It would be a comb=
ined chain and each user&#39;s coin total would be unaffected.=C2=A0 The ad=
vantage of doing that is that it causes minimum economic disruption to user=
s.=C2=A0 The mining power for both chains would be applied to the joint cha=
in, so they combine their security.=C2=A0 <br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">Alternatively, they could agree on an exchange rate.=C2=A0 Users wo=
uld be given joint-coins in exchange for their coins on the 2 legacy chains=
.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">For something like Bitcoin Cash a=
nd Bitcoin, they could have a re-combination rule.=C2=A0 1 Bitcoin-Recombin=
ed =3D 1 BTC + 1 BCH.=C2=A0 That doesn&#39;t seem very likely though and al=
so there are more BCH coins than BTC coins. <br></div><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">It might be worth moving this to=
 bitcoin-discuss, since it isn&#39;t really Bitcoin protocol discussion.<br=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><br>Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Il=
an Oh via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfou=
ndation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"auto">2017 was fork year,<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>Is it technically possible to merge two protocoles ? And thus bringing the=
 strength of both into one resulting coin.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto">I would not be surprized to see a lot of altcoin wanting=
 to merge with bitcoin or between them, especially with LN current developm=
ent, if it is possible,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
If anyone has ideas or ressources on this,=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br=
></div><div dir=3D"auto">Thanks</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.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-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div></di=
v></div></div>

--f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f--