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 C4431F17 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:03:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ot0-f174.google.com (mail-ot0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D70413 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f174.google.com with SMTP id a24so3813647otd.4 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:03:19 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=3DeRZZtKrFqogEC40BNntK/Wfo865HlXHiW5o4UlIzE=; b=jX7RgL592xGsj9pD5xG+8Led/IEicLfsWNJxNrFO+/yyq1wQgEmnCcyUHm833UfKFK Bhhmy6W65IQOb8jiUbzd6P421aYmkdo74V6961yaAz0D4fSMn89kWVYW504Lsekh6Nwr DqoDkwcTM2gJbrBGLqfDCGEdGSeYF/gJsQ83uKvp1anG19FclSOQT/jG6gxAURaNiN1F RyOqDdLATge7P8CurMYpKnM5v0R4ytwDkytUu6Tv6Y7vCcNBjnuTnOenXClLxDnPQkhJ 3D5PQo30fxJyvIq+7uAvqDegNV62HOOeYBdDJC6fc8aden/7zS4izRJjMbEmDyHeVJAQ SwhA== 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; bh=3DeRZZtKrFqogEC40BNntK/Wfo865HlXHiW5o4UlIzE=; b=DVR1erS+fbuAjgeUSfh61C4UgWWZOu/w5D31tV2u6gpKgzE8Ewz0R5ByUvIlcCsSH5 OKe1nPW5ipQ80ORbzWHVQ7GOo7e452cA46bUdK4YguYENn0yxp4ZHkyyY8fo8oeeo1fv 6h0usWp6p3VwwMCRoe8fKlFrhYy3pOEpueX/YOyUMo/gvoq8KmuX0wm6kv/jgp8BvNiD ZGMju02u2VzTQ2rUgYeXkqQJK3U37IPMebopB4pft/enwxvDIYHNYrDpN94nxlZ5/FqS yrC/YiM+ZQzKjlQu4F+nq6I+UMkiO9pdFmOftAbmi3ukBSQf4DXPlvgJlYOLGF20QFKM 5HJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytekvMSSxo7gN7mRFWckFvH1sfFxUHtyq/g5zVczeHbbmQA9/0j/ DCs0xEbuN+cmbf03UXoXwPl0kjoOY67zgeCZaOY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227ufmsUc15EBvZpiT+m8tEDdL4vfroX29DQ/7T8XS3j3N/lcDIDsNsHKfgdWFKGk0POb+idUHhqXZF7c7hvriQ= X-Received: by 10.157.80.9 with SMTP id a9mr8981250oth.147.1516806198333; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:03:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.38.136 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:02:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Tier Nolan Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:02:38 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Merge of protocol 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:03:19 -0000 --f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" If the communities behind two coins wanted to merge, it would be possible, but difficulty and risky. It represents a hard fork on both chains. Not only does each coin's community need to agree, the two communities need to agree with each other. They would both have to agree the join point. The merge block would have 2 parents. A <- B <- C <- D \ J1 <- J2 <- J3 <- J4 / w <- x <- y <- z In the above example, A, B, C, D is one chain and w, x, y, z is the other. They combine and then J1, J2, J3, J4 is the combined chain. Since block "J1" has 2 parents, it commits to the state of the 2 legacy chains. If you have coins in each chain at D or z, then you get coins in the joint chain. They would both need to agree on what the rules are for their new chain. Since it is a (double) hard fork, they can do pretty much anything they want. The combined chain could continue as before. It would be a combined chain and each user's coin total would be unaffected. The advantage of doing that is that it causes minimum economic disruption to users. The mining power for both chains would be applied to the joint chain, so they combine their security. Alternatively, they could agree on an exchange rate. Users would be given joint-coins in exchange for their coins on the 2 legacy chains. For something like Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin, they could have a re-combination rule. 1 Bitcoin-Recombined = 1 BTC + 1 BCH. That doesn't seem very likely though and also there are more BCH coins than BTC coins. It might be worth moving this to bitcoin-discuss, since it isn't really Bitcoin protocol discussion. Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Ilan Oh via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 2017 was fork year, > > Is it technically possible to merge two protocoles ? And thus bringing the > strength of both into one resulting coin. > > I would not be surprized to see a lot of altcoin wanting to merge with > bitcoin or between them, especially with LN current development, if it is > possible, > > If anyone has ideas or ressources on this, > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the communities behind two coins wa= nted to merge, it would be possible, but difficulty and risky.

It represents a hard fork on both chains.=C2=A0 Not only does each coin&#= 39;s community need to agree, the two communities need to agree with each o= ther.

They would both have to agree the join point.=C2=A0 The= merge block would have 2 parents.


A <- B <- C <- D
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 \
= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 J1 <- J2 <- J3 <- J4
=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 /
w <- x <- y <- z


In the above example,= A, B, C, D is one chain and w, x, y, z is the other.=C2=A0 They combine an= d then J1, J2, J3, J4 is the combined chain.

Since block = "J1" has 2 parents, it commits to the state of the 2 legacy chain= s.=C2=A0 If you have coins in each chain at D or z, then you get coins in t= he joint chain.

They would both need to agree = on what the rules are for their new chain.=C2=A0 Since it is a (double) har= d fork, they can do pretty much anything they want.

The combined chain could continue as before.=C2=A0 It would be a comb= ined chain and each user's coin total would be unaffected.=C2=A0 The ad= vantage of doing that is that it causes minimum economic disruption to user= s.=C2=A0 The mining power for both chains would be applied to the joint cha= in, so they combine their security.=C2=A0

Alternatively, they could agree on an exchange rate.=C2=A0 Users wo= uld be given joint-coins in exchange for their coins on the 2 legacy chains= .

For something like Bitcoin Cash a= nd Bitcoin, they could have a re-combination rule.=C2=A0 1 Bitcoin-Recombin= ed =3D 1 BTC + 1 BCH.=C2=A0 That doesn't seem very likely though and al= so there are more BCH coins than BTC coins.

It might be worth moving this to= bitcoin-discuss, since it isn't really Bitcoin protocol discussion.


Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Il= an Oh via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou= ndation.org> wrote:
2017 was fork year,

Is it technically possible to merge two protocoles ? And thus bringing the= strength of both into one resulting coin.

I would not be surprized to see a lot of altcoin wanting= to merge with bitcoin or between them, especially with LN current developm= ent, if it is possible,

= If anyone has ideas or ressources on this,=C2=A0
Thanks

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--f4030435abe8a51651056386f68f--