From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85706892 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 20:00:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD5BF26A for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 99so37115074lfu.1 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:00:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BNizbxE1IgfYjdL0v3fp1N1uuen7NesspETALnTio80=; b=fwHFkF4kyCxIsN78FENMif+0wNqARV15Xswkdt52NWONvsKTtYZXLdp+V7yjcBR5lU f76TO/UR5eso25IaYezoLTnReKqGrf3P7ARUIKbZ6iW6WA6MnYQxPD8qeKK9BfYDiPko 7G7gn82X+3E2KgcM5CHeZbDmVKqlt42WiYsBs0IionAZS0dU9v/Hbm+U3fdVaaZdiyyl Es+PCtW5a3MTkx337a7IP7T/8tqRW9vafmofjWenCdcw8Ed7lHUwv/HdNpxFVFmuhbW5 KJowqEFpP12NCBclohbevbSJ7abLeCKetI55OjhDg6YpdWOvEaIFR3wVVI/rXEkuNHVo QxNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BNizbxE1IgfYjdL0v3fp1N1uuen7NesspETALnTio80=; b=WVBB33mQ3EwD+w3oZkffWfVYPD01UZV4tljaeAWOrEiy3YdogEs4/nP6mYYmi1P5Mn W/vBk0RtdB5oBPf8Wtu9QTLZeRzHfsmf2ENQMmFLZhBAo7HNanHDsLJVzn1RcyMlbAq3 c+KSsKSRvxwoZwTimmZhJ6fiwdVvG0ViRfkSsAiU9shdgEq2Z8xkP9HKIpKBJnOaV1kM 9U/7bAeLNiIYy5XUkrXDjDK3pAXKRnQoCHOo94CUPvUZeYdPga8uEXZSVzfWW/Esf4st h3L9NHroARGUjuWK1bCRFcYDcvm4GShLq9rWt/XYDSp7PX7Th/XHuXt4yuaiXFilReE3 xm8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcC0bHaBuxmBQN/RzWCt/JwGGbBp6773OMPp7WopaY32t891Ynvj 5yLszJptLjqTGKClxCK+Yeu8WlrIbw== X-Received: by 10.25.234.85 with SMTP id i82mr5796710lfh.120.1495483220116; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:00:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.17.222 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.17.222 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:00:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <24f2b447-a237-45eb-ef9f-1a62533fad5c@gmail.com> From: Paul Sztorc Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Tier Nolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0d924e1a50ea0550225246" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain -- Request for Discussion X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 20:00:22 -0000 --94eb2c0d924e1a50ea0550225246 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On May 22, 2017 3:13 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > In the future, when there is no block subsidy, a rich attacker can also do > that in mainchain Bitcoin. > I don't think they are the same. With Bitcoin, you only get to reverse recent transactions. If you actually reversed 2-3 weeks of transactions, then the Bitcoin price would fall, destroying the value of the additional coins you managed to obtain. Even if their was no price fall, you can only get a fraction of the total. I would replace "Bitcoins you manage to steal" with "Bitcoins you manage to double-spend". Then, it still seems the same to me. With BMM, you can "buy" the entire reserve of the sidechain by paying (timeout) * (average tx fees). If you destroy a side-chain's value, then that doesn't affect the value of the bitcoins you manage to steal. It may destroy great value if it shakes confidence in the sidechain infrastructure. Thus, the value of the stolen BTC may decrease, in addition to the lost future tx fee revenues of the attacked chain. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security In my view, sidechains should only exist at all if they positively impact Bitcoin's value. It is therefore desirable for miners to steal from chains that provide no value-add. > In point of fact, the transactions *are* validated...by sidechain full > nodes, same as Bitcoin proper. > > The big difference is that Bitcoin holds no assets on another chain. A side-chain's value is directly linked to the fact that it has 100% reserves on the Bitcoin main chain. That can be targeted for theft. Again, I don't really think it is that different. One could interchange "recent txns" (those which could be double-spent within 2-3 weeks) with "sidechain deposit tnxs". --94eb2c0d924e1a50ea0550225246 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On May 22, 2017 3:13 PM, "Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev" &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Paul Sztorc via= bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> wrote:

In the f= uture, when there is no block subsidy, a rich attacker can also do that in = mainchain Bitcoin.

I don&= #39;t think they are the same.

With Bitcoin, you only = get to reverse recent transactions.=C2=A0 If you actually reversed 2-3 week= s of transactions, then the Bitcoin price would fall, destroying the value = of the additional coins you managed to obtain.=C2=A0 Even if their was no p= rice fall, you can only get a fraction of the total.
=

I would replace "= Bitcoins you manage to steal" with "Bitcoins you manage to double= -spend". Then, it still seems the same to me.


With BMM, you can "buy"= ; the entire reserve of the sidechain by paying (timeout) * (average tx fee= s).=C2=A0 If you destroy a side-chain's value, then that doesn't af= fect the value of the bitcoins you manage to steal.
<= /div>

It may destroy great value if it shakes confidence in the side= chain infrastructure. Thus, the value of the stolen BTC may decrease, in ad= dition to the lost future tx fee revenues of the attacked chain.


In my view, sidechains should only exist at all if they posi= tively impact Bitcoin's value. It is therefore desirable for miners to = steal from chains that provide no value-add.



In point of fact, the transa= ctions *are* validated...by sidechain full nodes, same as Bitcoin proper.

<= /blockquote>

The big difference is that Bitcoin ho= lds no assets on another chain.=C2=A0 A side-chain's value is directly = linked to the fact that it has 100% reserves on the Bitcoin main chain.=C2= =A0 That can be targeted for theft.

Again, I d= on't really think it is that different. One could interchange "rec= ent txns" (those which could be double-spent within 2-3 weeks) with &q= uot;sidechain deposit tnxs".

--94eb2c0d924e1a50ea0550225246--