[bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

Discussion:

Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev

2017-10-10 01:02:38 UTC

Dear list,

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

Permalink

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 â that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security â 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

Permalink

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 â that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security â 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

Permalink

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 â 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 â that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security â 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

Permalink

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 â 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
sharingÂ 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 â that
do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security â 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 sharingÂ 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

Permalink

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.

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

Permalink

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 â 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 â that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's
security â 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

Permalink

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 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.

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

Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev

2017-10-10 20:43:17 UTC

Permalink

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
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

James Hudon via bitcoin-dev

2017-10-10 20:57:03 UTC

Permalink

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.

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
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 20:49:20 UTC

Permalink

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 theyâre 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.