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 5B9B1A67 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:49:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1075E432 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i124so493667wmf.3 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:49:22 -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=+IF+/Ctk+oDTkR9oQkVRiTumKRRDdn3nI+dU9uY29s4=; b=LO6qspBokduDnF+hUJUypPyjAukZ1omrW++Yy2p2ECKug70AVe3Mz9S4uJLVJhOlBd Y8Hey0+gvE2p2sFeRWFuOfKBH6GOWoZjMhZ3F9J0OuzgtdzR3hwuYF0u+qUA9Lbhtm5Q PZ5Cm7S+RqzqN8ZYK5b68/+odq18F6/ckBTh5F0mNAX03o2Zht/Whpf3YxxZUEB8VEJt c3shs0SVck5+7TIhJ0MEXkrMn0Hq81gTDyf/WokqOD6ByleIE16yXCvzBFYbtmVBuAuS RuG/xE36/0Yb1e38IJxZK4VU/7jrOrf/TrIQrK57izOqmq0vfSQW5KWDNUkQAjaU8/RG 672Q== 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=+IF+/Ctk+oDTkR9oQkVRiTumKRRDdn3nI+dU9uY29s4=; b=c2f0tCAdprurcbUZBY+77/I546mZ9gEZbL7DhX/W+9SXfr0B8Mf2cwSO8po2B/Wxpu 5RRjBoqq+H/gSq3z6HMNjH952wkuJ3ysyvgbwbQVXQWDSKKVh9XqML0AXX4x8V7G5kpp qRktqSgRUuz9AIjZF8k8YuAwU190CHhzSz8dvEwWCdG/B80TQoTl9UOcuFhN94jykLgE GnhYyL4jX0hQlDXftsC7nQD/dm/wTzA6njQM0GCdWreEubwH62fMJT+7uG6tceubFyXE RCNQmNJs/X3VIUE/RvdE4Q3kMGJI7pHQrSWQG06XWbHyXOkhLJO+8AS9FwbdKyiPkcJs 8J3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXZ1lUuLxorssSh64IWNB4RH3duuPMPgNH7n0sp+4EtCzjDgh71 iFMVjzlqnx1lItFw1+wWBk2+bfV1EmRZOr1rQf+fkQdu X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDcOwEb5WobOeN6ZYtauf8eeu2am8eDsH1ubKIAzURIfajl9ZMueR26HmLTGcdR6SWyV6BIA+SKL1s33mqijEU= X-Received: by 10.28.170.208 with SMTP id t199mr13397461wme.4.1507668561389; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.196.79 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.196.79 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com> <55CAABF4-4FB8-4230-8E51-014C1D347D72@taoeffect.com> From: CryptAxe Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:49:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Tao Effect Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114430780a718b055b3771cf" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:59:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC 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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:49:24 -0000 --001a114430780a718b055b3771cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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=E2=80=99re from core de= velopers. > Gotta run. > > -- > 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 1:23 PM, James Hudon wrote: > > > > 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 < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > >> > >>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe wrote: > >>> > >>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why? > >>> > >>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>> 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 th= ey > 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 < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think this response speaks for itself. > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote: > >>>>> 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 =E2=80= =95 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. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" > wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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-mai= n > 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-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear list, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like > proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals =E2=80=95 that do not= sacrifice > Bitcoin's security =E2=80=95 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 wri= te > 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, includin= g > 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 ge= t > lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this lis= t > can figure out those details. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify tha= t > 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 othe= r > 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 > >>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a114430780a718b055b3771cf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You could technically call myself and Chris 'core dev= elopers'. You don't get to have a fixed rate of Bitcoin and a secon= d way to mint coins at the same time.=C2=A0

On Oct 10, 2017 1:46 PM, "Tao Effect v= ia bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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-withd= raw you mint on another chain.

I will not respond to any more emails unless they=E2=80=99re from core deve= lopers. Gotta run.

--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing w= ith the NSA.

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 y= ou whole). Why would they agree to this?
> --
> hudon
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. = Why?
>>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev&quo= t; <bitcoin-dev= @lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Shees= h.
>>>
>>> Whereas in Drivechain users are forced to give up their coins = to a single group for whatever sidechains they interact with, the generic s= harding 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 a= lso sharing with the NSA.
>>>
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think this response speaks for itself.
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
>>>>> 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 coin= s, equivalent to the amount you "burned" on the chain you're = transferring from =E2=80=95 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 comfo= rtable also sharing with the NSA.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins= .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" &l= t;contact@taoeffect.com> wr= ote:
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a two-way peg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing preventing transfers back to t= he main chain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They work in the exact same manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not c= omfortable also sharing with the NSA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 a= ny side-to-main transfer to succeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvant= ages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via b= itcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Dri= vechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals =E2=80=95 = that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security =E2=80=95 would come along. >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have d= ecided to just send off this email with what I have, because I'm unlike= ly 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 id= eas (e.g. burning coins) before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all bl= ockchains, including Bitcoin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A ar= e going to be sent to Chain B".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and creat= e 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 fol= ks on this list can figure out those details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all ver= y 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 t= o look for the other coins (if for some reason it needs to).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification t= o 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 propos= al).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Greg Slepak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledge= r.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are n= ot comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _________________________________________= ______
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>>> https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfo= undation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfounda= tion.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a114430780a718b055b3771cf--