path: root/a9/a985bd21bc0f530e0329db29feb7f562bf5437

Return-Path: <li3939108@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7F51FA2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:46:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f171.google.com (mail-wr0-f171.google.com
	[209.85.128.171])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67FAF2F1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:46:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f171.google.com with SMTP id f11so9794675wre.4
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:46:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc; bh=quyorqfAPRiUJtWVWcB+3eepyyjgGNc4K5rHd33Ozjk=;
	b=rNCogB/Qit/V0SwLWmN7F3Y8AMx3pMxajHlbj6M+u0+U7ujJTGPGjxD1sk9Jd184Ve
	lBDHxcUt4DzRbeP2jzeW9kIKQbIZcyPizUmbIjTbUvUWNda3cghAO2J/Tn3TACoF5prU
	56ztWiyBj2UXg3pwpeBavCsLK3niT0O6pxQ4GI5vuLk6/11UrIIcem0V18v70qlcNixY
	NDYT3O2o0BiKL4lcNDcEDiJTYhQR9RqylNnG8SY+MkyYUy4bT62cPyRwXdegZJN8VGT9
	6v9skE51G5Ah4hjA2ntUz2zcX78086e3UurHkflP5ol2miNWlgjv9hKPdpnIvydjfpk/
	UUHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc;
	bh=quyorqfAPRiUJtWVWcB+3eepyyjgGNc4K5rHd33Ozjk=;
	b=OEqsmjrtDvO7HVagjavIhdmNtOhAYvfPtwnpqDSa9XuExI82XHZB8WdMTtN763ek5K
	RjwDLStD1Bc+zBJ15xtOcgdeswg2Dd8f8E2871IxeRwlWhVLzub9ks+Hr+ha9Wp68pqA
	hrbepiXgtttqWQWGFEmMb5sroF2GvzHqjmtU+iGBROM9Ezz0DnUK2COK4niurWcV5jGk
	kSsB5bynZjNHIYyRzkn/Ki0BU9YGa7Eh500cUYPPxhg/OpqO3p1HERF3AC6Fv3C83l8n
	m7da8a+/Tdv1rO77cp+A2cxkwfoo00gneOmIRaB0QxRZG5ze4MooeVfPLWRVCi7yrzrT
	y24Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfwqtxq9JEcFeS7u32+0tg0mlufeoquaR/X29Z5Rt53eHvaU9tC
	4XCGp+jDP57cxdDW9ZlHPMpNppWQLCcciKFpDsNYfA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2277nMgXGU9pvLZAu/ukRQcAqBEOWW1rqyvsMVve+dV3wwQDUoTfB802PgYkrmQI6urAETGxhB+9NFSa33nKrAs=
X-Received: by 10.223.190.4 with SMTP id n4mr8150061wrh.28.1516646777685; Mon,
	22 Jan 2018 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANZDnNomrpBTJU4=J1QqJpDePJ6RXyYsrwa=b9ZZOjyf1utQBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<ijnCMrLMjj4_aUv1BO5NiTk9jtMBL6aaN0yg4hwbF6JNms3MmlpNww0-smKeaqqT0dhsfmxlaX-tKoZ6s06g2ZNmgqY4uWnuuFul8e9on6g=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ijnCMrLMjj4_aUv1BO5NiTk9jtMBL6aaN0yg4hwbF6JNms3MmlpNww0-smKeaqqT0dhsfmxlaX-tKoZ6s06g2ZNmgqY4uWnuuFul8e9on6g=@protonmail.com>
From: Chaofan Li <li3939108@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:46:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CANZDnNo2HMWGOZ4torXvpqjbq6SE=NLBLwysJzetrpurWBu+yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082f76706f09a6056361d882"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:51:25 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain Voluntary Fork (Split) Proposal
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:46:20 -0000

--089e082f76706f09a6056361d882
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi ZmnSCPxj

I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the same.
If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are the same , except some identifier=
s (eg.
btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no reason to have different value. If so, t=
he
market will adjust the value.

Also, the total supply can be the same. The amount in blockchains  is just
some numbers. The  wallet can display correct amount, according to the
identifiers.

The voluntary split is also backward compatible with old version
transactions, they can be treated as tx for both chains and included in
both chains later. For new version Tx after fork, some identifiers must be
added , to mark the tx is for that chain only. The miners need to choose
one chain to mine.

After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically become a
blocktree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 btc.10
btc.11 ), providing even more capacity.

Chaofan


On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Chaofan Li,
>
> What enforces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B?  Or are they
> allowed to eventually diverge in price?  If they diverge in price, how is
> that different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bitcoin
> Gold, Bitcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On January 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Here I propose a simple method to solve the scalability issue of
> blockchain.
> It is more like a financial trick rather than a technical solution.
>
> The technical part is very simple:
> Split ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. two
> blockchain A and B), voluntarily.
> The two blockchains are the same except for some identifiers to
> distinguish the two blockchains.
> The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one or interfere=
d
> by the other blockchain (  considering so many hard forks in the last yea=
r,
> the replay protection should work in this situation)
> Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half  value of original one
> bitcoin.
> Then, we have two almost same blockchains and the capacity of the origina=
l
> blockchain is doubled theoretically.
> When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randomly and
> try to send through only  one blockchain (If there is enough bitcoins)
> I think it is a  possible solution, if the community realize  no
> previously owned asset value  is lost.
>
> The method is inspired by the stock split
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_split>.
> When a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price halve=
s.
> The market capitalization remains the same.
> There is no dilution of every shareholders' total assets.
>
> The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply should not be
> changed.
> If the total supply increases, the value of a single coin will be diluted=
.
> That is true.
> However, the bad part of inflation of fiat money is not  diluted value of
> every unit of fiat money caused by total supply increase.
> The problem is the increased supply is not delivered to everyone
> proportional to their previously owned money.
> The increased supply is released through debt expansion.
> The people that can borrow more money with low interest ratio (during QE,
> it was nearly 0) can invest  and get profit.
> Or they don't even need to pay back the debt. The debt is left to
> government, which might never pay back the debt, and some  get more money
> from government.
> Others' money are diluted.
>
> With voluntary split of bitcoin, dilution of anyone's bitcoin assets won'=
t
> happen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--089e082f76706f09a6056361d882
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><div dir=3D"auto">Hi ZmnSCPxj</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">I dont think they need to be ENFORCED to be worth the same.=C2=
=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">If the two chains=E2=80=99 algorithms are the sa=
me , except some identifiers (eg. btc.0 btc.1=EF=BC=89, they have no reason=
 to have different value. If so, the market will adjust the value.</div><di=
v dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Also, the total supply can be th=
e same. The amount in blockchains =C2=A0is just some numbers. The =C2=A0wal=
let can display correct amount, according to the identifiers.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The voluntary split is also backward =
compatible with old version transactions, they can be treated as tx for bot=
h chains and included in both chains later. For new version Tx after fork, =
some identifiers must be added , to mark the tx is for that chain only. The=
 miners need to choose one chain to mine.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">After several voluntary splits , the Blockchain basically=
 become a blocktree, new blocks are added to the leaves(eg. btc.00 btc.01 b=
tc.10 btc.11 ), providing even more capacity.=C2=A0</div></div><div><div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Chaofan</div></div><div><div di=
r=3D"auto"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Jan 22, 20=
18 at 5:13 AM ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com" targe=
t=3D"_blank">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div>Good morning Chaofan Li,<br></div><div><br></div><div=
>What enforces that bitcoin A is worth the same as bitcoin B?=C2=A0 Or are =
they allowed to eventually diverge in price?=C2=A0 If they diverge in price=
, how is that different from the current situation with Bitcoin, BCash, Bit=
coin Gold, Bitcoin Hardfork-of-the-week, and so on?<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Regards,<br></div><div>ZmnSCPxj<br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D=
"m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_signature_block"><d=
iv class=3D"m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_signatur=
e_block-user m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_signatu=
re_block-empty"><br></div><div class=3D"m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909=
568960831protonmail_signature_block-proton">Sent with <a href=3D"https://pr=
otonmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<br></div></div=
><div><br></div><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div> On J=
anuary 17, 2018 3:55 PM, Chaofan Li via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"m_-6919424486659141598m_-1349810909568960831protonmail_quote" type=3D"=
cite"><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Here I propose a simple metho=
d to solve the scalability issue of blockchain.<br></div><div>It is more li=
ke a financial trick rather than a technical solution.=C2=A0<br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>The technical part is very simple:=C2=A0<br></div><div>Split=
 ( hard fork ) the blockchain into two or more blockchains (e.g. two blockc=
hain A and B), voluntarily.=C2=A0<br></div><div>The two blockchains are the=
 same except for some identifiers to distinguish the two blockchains.<br></=
div><div>The coins on one blockchains cannot be sent to the other one or in=
terfered by the other blockchain (=C2=A0 considering so many hard forks in =
the last year, the replay protection should work in this situation)<br></di=
v><div>Everyone get double bitcoins. Each has half=C2=A0 value of original =
one bitcoin.=C2=A0<br></div><div>Then, we have two almost same blockchains =
and the capacity of the original blockchain is doubled theoretically.<br></=
div><div>When sending coin, the wallet should select one blockchain randoml=
y and try to send through only=C2=A0 one blockchain (If there is enough bit=
coins)<br></div><div>I think it is a=C2=A0 possible solution, if the commun=
ity realize=C2=A0 no previously owned asset value=C2=A0 is lost.<br></div><=
div><br></div><div>The method is inspired by the <a href=3D"https://en.wiki=
pedia.org/wiki/Stock_split" target=3D"_blank">stock split</a>.<br></div><di=
v>When a stock share is split, for example into two shares, the price halve=
s.<br></div><div>The market capitalization remains the same.<br></div><div>=
There is no dilution of every shareholders&#39; total assets.<br></div><div=
><br></div><div>The bitcoin often emphasizes that the total coin supply sho=
uld not be changed.<br></div><div>If the total supply increases, the value =
of a single coin will be diluted.<br></div><div>That is true.<br></div><div=
>However, the bad part of inflation of fiat money is not=C2=A0 diluted valu=
e of every unit of fiat money caused by total supply increase.<br></div><di=
v>The problem is the increased supply is not delivered to everyone proporti=
onal to their previously owned money.<br></div><div>The increased supply is=
 released through debt expansion.<br></div><div>The people that can borrow =
more money with low interest ratio (during QE, it was nearly 0) can invest=
=C2=A0 and get profit.<br></div><div>Or they don&#39;t even need to pay bac=
k the debt. The debt is left to government, which might never pay back the =
debt, and some=C2=A0 get more money from government.<br></div><div>Others&#=
39; money are diluted.<br></div><div><br></div><div>With voluntary split of=
 bitcoin, dilution of anyone&#39;s bitcoin assets won&#39;t happen.<br></di=
v><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div>

--089e082f76706f09a6056361d882--