MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com>
	<CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:18:39 -0300
Message-ID: <CAGCathy2U7+Qy4gLB0S_j-kArvGHuELDgzweFR4grQQ9AZgAbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114925387a104d055b3704e8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized
 scaling without Miners owning our BTC
Precedence: list

--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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2017=
-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way=
.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">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.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div>One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages=
.</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>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&#39;t (because the l=
ion was chased away or killed).<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div=
 class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature">Lucas Clement=
e Vella<br><a href=3D"mailto:lvella@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lvella@gma=
il.com</a></div>
</div></div>

--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8--