Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB67AA88 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A065433 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id i124so308389wmf.3 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:19:01 -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=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=; b=HAlaqoy9dfZUjEe4KZHBoBZGEIe4nWj5ByHsM/kwm41Rei28MPKwzZk0lTCwQa+BwE fhGQ/rV1KT2T6uzGvkLS9ktaCg/ajaxJqXvgwWNm4DziXHfB8CLYOdPUPj6r67KxLrab 82CjO96zNrLOlg38Qqx3RYAeDxv94UxWy3zleqlSxrYn2iJ3v7gzMP4obf15N6KB7ORh zUD+BX75eXq2elP76S885p4gTQ2225WM3AoBl5yyn+aVOsNlRMUMPEwJkuNMMC2Oqh8G W49CEpjIMdr/itPJnszq9ZKWVUoXoMYuxYIHJaAvXbdns9ZayzoT6IQNN6Bd6afAsrWH dU6Q== 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=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=; b=N3SyTDyIcBdsHVQ9Ebb9ftETiahHxwyJC5nH0mEKDuZ9LP3YTw+6Z2eN1W8V7bh7+V nHqHh4xYt1jRCtTTEcSpdafUxN6ffSJ4K+zw7NTIpWeljHEhmsLJ6Cps6Z4PpTVwsVHb Mxe2lg53KZvxK8Gny+5jswyXNlcQz/97Md2xw0O96OCCalUWu7CWQr9qxNaNibyjGHsE /AII2YyzM98vvv/XVTg2Hc3XKYTOp/qlwlmqDAlXDnZ2LjDXXQyjlww2VyEvz8xK0mTQ Mu/d2BwojPT+i0a6kPe+/EM0EfHH45B/oSrTpGJ232jKnFef/VlOdaPw6S5BoI13R0a4 zwfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVhaDY2B/z8rZ7b2vVGOnXQJ98+rg9P5S+bYlkzHIdJzUHD5Wr1 dYkGuV+DWfHIoEYPTKiovzEJVfbDLylO/T3HmlU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDEJdjncT7DUEW5+aAXgpa3YGjv1AAZQPkTTyRAb+FhqJqyioY55ad8xK43Itrd5YBy8mPwKG8TtTXrWJlRcic= X-Received: by 10.223.136.85 with SMTP id e21mr12485625wre.37.1507666739988; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.86.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com> From: Lucas Clemente Vella Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:18:39 -0300 Message-ID: To: Paul Sztorc , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114925387a104d055b3704e8" 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 20:21:12 +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 20:19:02 -0000 --001a114925387a104d055b3704e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > 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. > I understand the first-mover disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optimal, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the original chain, but in some so much better to justify the change, the initial resistance is an unstable equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes attacking a lion: the first buffalo to attack is in awful disadvantage, but if a critical mass of the herd follows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited, both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the lion was chased away or killed). -- Lucas Clemente Vella lvella@gmail.com --001a114925387a104d055b3704e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2017= -10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way= .

In fact, that is exact= ly 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= .
=C2=A0
I understand the first-move= r disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optima= l, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the original chain, but in some = so much better to justify the change, the initial resistance is an unstable= equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes attacking a lion: the first buffalo = to attack is in awful disadvantage, but if a critical mass of the herd foll= ows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited= , both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the l= ion was chased away or killed).
=C2=A0
--
Lucas Clement= e Vella
lvella@gma= il.com
--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8--