Discussion:
Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC
Add Reply
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 01:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear list,

In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 01:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Dear list,

In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I
promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security — 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 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 "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 sharing with
the NSA.
Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 11:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I
promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security — 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 14:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 — as stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 15:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 — as
stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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"
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like
proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that
do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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
"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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 19:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust (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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 \ as stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals \ that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security \ 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 19:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?

On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 algo
lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust
(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 <
I think this response speaks for itself.
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 — as stated 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.
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
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" <
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I
promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security — 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.

--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust (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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 \ as stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals \ that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security \ 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:43:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What?

That is not correct.

There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.

The only difference is what chain it is on.

It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.

I will not respond to any more emails unless they’re from core developers. Gotta run.

--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make you whole). Why would they agree to this?
--
hudon
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust (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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 ― as stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals ― that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security ― 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
James Hudon via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make you whole). Why would they agree to this?
--
hudon
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
What?
That is not correct.
There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.
The only difference is what chain it is on.
It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.
I will not respond to any more emails unless they’re from core developers. Gotta run.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make you whole). Why would they agree to this?
--
hudon
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trust (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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 ― as stated 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.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals ― that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security ― 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 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 "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 sharing with the NSA.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You could technically call myself and Chris 'core developers'. You don't
get to have a fixed rate of Bitcoin and a second way to mint coins at the
same time.

On Oct 10, 2017 1:46 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
What?
That is not correct.
There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.
The only difference is what chain it is on.
It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you
burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.
I will not respond to any more emails unless they’re from core developers.
Gotta run.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the
bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then
stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your
amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make
you whole). Why would they agree to this?
--
hudon
On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they
want to trust (the miners of the various sidechains).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Hi Paul,
I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the
semantics of the word "burn".
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 ― as
stated in the OP.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like
proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals ― that do not sacrifice
Bitcoin's security ― would come along.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including
Bitcoin.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to
Chain B".
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
- 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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
- Users client software now also knows where to look for the other
coins (if for some reason it needs to).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol
as most of the verification is done client-side.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our
ownership of our coins to miners to get scale.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which
case, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Cheers,
Greg Slepak
* This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Ben Kloester via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-11 02:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't get it. At the moment, the number of Bitcoin is fixed (at 21
million) by the geometric decay of the block reward.

Adding any other means of creating coins besides the existing block reward,
or altering the block reward schedule, is extremely likely to be seen as
messing with fixed supply. And not adding another method to create coins
wouldn't work - because then redemptions would have to come out of miner's
block reward, which I don't imagine they're going to share just because you
ask.

The only way you might convince users that adding a second way to mint
coins is not messing with fixed supply, is if there is some kind of proof
that the number of coins being minted is accounted for by past burnt coins.
We could call this 'regeneration'. But then you also need a way to prevent
double-regeneration, in which the same burnt coins are used as proof twice.

And you would also need per-sidechain accounting, so that you can't just
regenerate burnt coins that were originally burnt for sidechain A when all
you have is coins on sidechain B. But where to put all this logic? Building
a system that enforces the accounting for sidechains into Bitcoin, as Lucas
pointed out, is not much different to just building the sidechain itself
directly into Bitcoin.

And if you did assemble all that, what you have anyway is a two way peg,
which I suspect will be isomorphic to the very sidechain proposals you seem
to be criticising/attempting to do better than.



*Ben Kloester*

On 11 October 2017 at 07:43, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
What?
That is not correct.
There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.
The only difference is what chain it is on.
It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you
burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.
I will not respond to any more emails unless they’re from core developers.
Gotta run.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the
bitcoin used in the peg. You're effectively losing your money and then
stealing from the miners to gain it back. The miners had to issue your
amount of bitcoin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make
you whole). Why would they agree to this?
--
hudon
On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?
On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
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 algo lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they
want to trust (the miners of the various sidechains).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <
I think this response speaks for itself.
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Hi Paul,
I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the
semantics of the word "burn".
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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 ― as
stated in the OP.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
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 with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like
proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals ― that do not sacrifice
Bitcoin's security ― would come along.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including
Bitcoin.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to
Chain B".
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
- 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.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
- Users client software now also knows where to look for the other
coins (if for some reason it needs to).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol
as most of the verification is done client-side.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our
ownership of our coins to miners to get scale.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which
case, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Cheers,
Greg Slepak
* This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
sharing with the NSA.
Post by CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
2017-10-10 11:09 GMT-03:00 Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <
Post by Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent to the
amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from — as stated in
the OP.
If you have to change Bitcoin to recognize a transfer from the sidechain
back into Bitcoin, you kill the purpose of the sidechain. You could as well
just change the Bitcoin to implement whatever desirable features the
sidechain would have. The whole idea of sidechains is to keep Bicoin
unchangend, and allow for the voluntary transfer of tokens out of Bitcoin
to the sidechain of your choosing.
--
Lucas Clemente Vella
***@gmail.com
Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
***@gmail.com
Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 20:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What if two sidechains are implemented at once? What if people get excited
about one sidechain today, but a second even-better one is published the
very next week? What if the original mainchain decides to integrate the
features of the sidechain that you just one-way pegged to?

In these cases, the user looses money, whereas in the two-way peg they
would not lose a thing.

While the one-way peg is interesting, it really doesn't compare.

Paul
Post by Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev
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
***@gmail.com
Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
2017-10-10 00:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear list,

In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 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 "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

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
Loading...