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 B1FE3EC3 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:45:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.136]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3C0623 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:45:29 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1554720333; bh=XSp2u9bnz89+TKT8xp9DTLu0o6NLZ2W7Eg18SwqN3Iw=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=mKu5uuc1FFUXY8U7Glu4sQUbJTpOkqZivQqL3IJVHrWwS+fMES7rxDKwshq7RKM5B i76SUikuboHQsADsFHkxBPLzta9mE8JfaPOxENTo2Vqej7oCOeOMIMeaWdSyGvG15I ibkkE/+yd01fgj7jeBcMeF3gXGgScQSmurZA0mKs= To: Aymeric Vitte From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <392367fe-b1d7-7d47-01de-ebb4b7142ead@gmail.com> References: <392367fe-b1d7-7d47-01de-ebb4b7142ead@gmail.com> Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URI_NOVOWEL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:13:04 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Smart Contracts Unchained 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, 08 Apr 2019 10:45:37 -0000 Good morning Aymeric, > Hi, > > Apparently you are not a fan of ethereum, as far as I can tell ethereum > sidechains look like a mess with stupid tokens/transactions flooding the > network while they are completely centralized, but some bitcoin > sidechains can easily compete with this too, like Tether, don't even > understand how anyone can give some credit to that stuff the way it is > implemented, and if bitcoin fails that would be the same as for ethereum I prefer to be more precise in my terminology. Colored coins are not the same as sidechains, and there are colored coins a= nd then there are colored coins. This mechanism does not propose some change in colored coins. An important aspect of colored coins is that one can foist them on somebody= else to extract things of real value from them, but this mechanism is more= strongly for a fixed set of participants. I strongly suspect that Bitcoin will outlast Ethereum, but that is rather n= ot very related to this topic. > Most likely everyone would agree if the escrow disappears, but not sure > at all, let's imagine 1 to N put 10K on the table for a game, they > update the states and at the end N wins everything, N is rich and don't > care finally if the others cheaters have their coins locked (and to lose > 10K), same with setting up a new escrow to resolve the conflict > Indeed. Still, the option to do so exists, and sometimes all that is needed for hum= ans to do the right thing, is to be given the option to do so. > I think that you should highlight this (and what private key corresponds > to E + h(E | s) * G, not sure it's trivial for everybody), probably a > way to get this more decentralized is to reward the escrows (what is the > interest here for people to run a smart contract platform?) I assumed both were obvious, but I suppose a few more words about those wou= ld not be amiss. > > For lightning, maybe it's a question of wording, I consider it as a > sidechain AND methods that can be used by other sidechains, as well as > the others you quoted, even if only two people in the world use > lightning, it is still decentralized, because it sustains itself alone Again, I prefer precision in my terminology. For me, a sidechain is a blockchain of some sort. In particular, a kind of Merklized singly-linked list containing representa= tions of transformations of state, is how I define blockchain to be. No such Merklized singly-linked list exists in Lightning Network, thus I do= not consider it, "blockchain". And thus I do not consider it "sidechain", as a sidechain is a blockchain. Current LN does use "shachains" by Rusty, but shachains are not Merklized s= ingly-linked lists, but are instead a kind of inverse mountain range struct= ure. Still, one might consider both federated sidechains and Lightning Network t= o have a "federated" offchain structure. This is because the coins on the Bitcoin blockchain are locked to a multisi= gnature and activity is not recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain. However, in LN, each channel is a 2-member federation (you and a counterpar= ty) and the mechanism in LN requires consensus (2-of-2) rather than a quoru= m (m-of-n). This greatly increases the security of LN: the owner of funding on an LN ch= annel can always refuse to sign an update if the other member of the federa= tion is taken over. Compare this to the quorum that typical federations have, where takeover of= a sufficient quorum is enough to steal funds from the remaining federation= . https://zmnscpxj.github.io/offchain/safety.html Regards, ZmnSCPxj