From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00EEC016F for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4E888876 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quk8IQ4JAb5W for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com (mail-qt1-f195.google.com [209.85.160.195]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E401988874 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id z2so5972644qts.5 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zdGPsetx55fGjACqX3+JXw5wp8MMqKmwf3KFWU2Y6xE=; b=lR2+kH1GcLrxl8mRQO9XCqR8fpxlmUOKu8TLXWu1cf1gGn9U1Fj1ruGCbzY57l1BBI cbCt2k9hATz9iX3Pe/W/cq69VLt4WFgAN/xBEuFJIv9UfVFCCf+7WHAW7LEpFYJuudx3 t+olCr3MXH9hV/O01JCbPQnNM62IJrWGibmNu/BHgaeMaf7ijkl29JSi2aL7djZw9Xzh 2U9fr9D/YsA4yjyFObOsPXGKNMxmvRhVHOVzoH7IHPW1n6woirIDLsvMEIdm5QBkkoe8 MuGlUsG3T6vk//q/1cGevRg7dYo7Pmj9ootxQIKbzQyWxmt3hR/ul8YScQ0rKI6Eu/oW fcvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zdGPsetx55fGjACqX3+JXw5wp8MMqKmwf3KFWU2Y6xE=; b=SeSZAJVYFLrXsEUpDA+HXSunh81j/Zb1nZFxKK89lKzknS4jFEYxlmWfzNy3yvoOPT C/XlACM36MQyuBY1WN/tDfRbp7C3nvJvzhsSpVcrZFGvMm2sK52DLcXEbna03HS031EA 2Ckvelxisgj8J7VXViAesiPLq8ocONLx+sTtfOtGRIt9Y4NZXrI0YRuKk+OBMqOzWVnO l2QoSSCpB2IHR9OEzcQfYD1d6jn6maw463H+EP1QK3tHDoOZQR0S4JYL+2V05L78ez2w 4CN6AMvC93dn5kZJyufS1CjtFTdiN8p2wiEk2uzBv0ZOSY3UakVJBTebCHFQ7ifA5Sg2 GmRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ubjlT2kkRPiyHMQqzANZicMNwL73M/CHFnAKPwSH3DSmwYK1C kDY3OOP+vA3kw/z3c/ny7cJFZiQVXvtfMcW8/dp+xIRE X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyz9gpQJ2AXGTg5NnzTwj7saxc+FKO0brZkQoMUhpQKbj4GRFVC2cVnfoW3EnbuFb7P97TSy+2X2M1BpV3Iiik= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:75c4:: with SMTP id z4mr14736688qtq.371.1593121411696; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:43:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Cloud Strife Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:43:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d40dcd05a8ef7b83" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:14:51 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin 2-way-pegged childchains via Proof of Burn X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:33 -0000 --000000000000d40dcd05a8ef7b83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi everyone, I am hoping to get a critique on a proposal of how to construct childchains "on-top" of Bitcoin without requiring any changes to Bitcoin itself nor requiring any user or miner to be aware of them. The childchain is Bitcoin-aware and simulates the properties of Proof of Work by requiring continuous burning of Bitcoin in return for the fees on the childchain. The childchain tip is selected by highest total accumulated Bitcoin burnt (with goal to simulate total accumulated work) for that full chained set of childchain block commits. The only asset on the childchain is a 2-way-peg coin that's secured in value without oracles or collateral by requiring that each valid child chain block must not only burn Bitcoin, but must always use a small % of the burnt amount to deterministically reimburse withdrawals from the childchain. Childchain -> mainchain :: user burns the child-BTC and is added to withdrawal queue filled as part of validity requirements by childchain "miners" until filled 1:1 on mainchain or more. Note that occasionally overpaying a widthdrawal does not break 1:1 peg as there's no fixed size 1:1 pool of coins necessary. mainchain -> childchain :: user burns BTC (independent of mining childchain) and is issued equivalent 1:1 child-BTC on the childchain While childchains are less secure than the mainchain, both the childchain security and the 2-way-peg accuracy might be an acceptable option for lower value tx on scale determined by the burning rate. Childchains would replace the need for any additional Proof of Work chains for new blockchains to introduce any complexity (e.g. mimblewimble childchain). They would effectively use Proof of Work done on Bitcoin as proxy for unforgeable costliness and benefit from Bitcoin's censorship resistance and data availability. Large numbers of low value tx that might be priced out of using the main chain could possibly in bulk provide enough childchain fees combined through childchain miners to afford much higher mainchain fees like "batching for fees". It also has the "benefits" claimed by proof of stake like no energy consumption without relying on internal permissions or tokens, trusted distributions, or centralizing mechanisms like staking by simulating proof of work. It should allow both growing the Bitcoin ecosystem and replace the need to create alternative cryptocurrencies just to make a new blockchain. More detailed write up available here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214173.0 I am hoping for a review if there's an overlooked issue or maybe interest to create a proof of concept. Thank you -CS --000000000000d40dcd05a8ef7b83 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,

I am hoping to get a critique on a proposal of how to construct=C2=A0chil= dchains=C2=A0"on-top" of Bitcoin without requiring any changes to= Bitcoin itself nor requiring any user or miner to be aware of them.
<= div>
The childchain is Bitcoin-aware and simulates the proper= ties of Proof of Work by requiring continuous burning of Bitcoin in return = for the fees on the childchain.

The childchain= =C2=A0tip is selected by highest total accumulated Bitcoin burnt (with goal= to simulate total accumulated work) for that full chained set of childchai= n block commits.

The only asset on the childchain= =C2=A0is a 2-way-peg coin that's secured in value without oracles or co= llateral by requiring that each valid child chain block must not only burn = Bitcoin, but must always use a small % of the burnt amount to deterministic= ally reimburse=C2=A0withdrawals from the childchain.

Childchain -> mainchain :: user burns the child-BTC and is added to w= ithdrawal queue filled as part of validity requirements by childchain "= ;miners" until filled 1:1 on mainchain or more. Note that occasionally= overpaying a widthdrawal does not break 1:1 peg as there's no fixed si= ze 1:1 pool of coins necessary.

mainchain -> ch= ildchain :: user burns BTC (independent of mining childchain) and is issued= equivalent 1:1 child-BTC on the childchain

While = childchains=C2=A0are less secure than the mainchain, both the childchain se= curity and the 2-way-peg accuracy might be an acceptable option for lower v= alue tx on scale determined by the burning rate.=C2=A0

=
Childchains would replace the need for any additional Proof of Work ch= ains for new blockchains to introduce any complexity (e.g. mimblewimble chi= ldchain).

They would effectively use Proof of Work= done on Bitcoin as proxy for unforgeable costliness and benefit from Bitco= in's censorship resistance and data availability. Large numbers of low = value tx that might be priced out of using the main chain could possibly in= bulk provide enough childchain fees combined through childchain miners to = afford much higher mainchain fees like "batching for fees".
=

It also has the "benefits" claimed by proof o= f stake like no energy consumption without relying on internal permissions = or tokens, trusted distributions, or centralizing mechanisms like staking b= y simulating proof of work. It should allow both growing the Bitcoin ecosys= tem and replace the need to create alternative cryptocurrencies just to mak= e a new blockchain.

More detailed write up availab= le here:=C2=A0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D5214173.0=C2=A0=C2=A0

--000000000000d40dcd05a8ef7b83--