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 4B1011BF5 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:18:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDD67A6 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id o25so3917113wmf.5 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gt85DYeQntqOMWrnM6/pCKEu6Rj3p6kda2kQklL3hTk=; b=TR0OG5Rs2dgtrwnJXMLnvJCwPWNi/SC156Z+bz8WDoh23XSsd8V907T7kLOEU53UKA kK2PkeSN3bWAlG8WWKNGqIh8q1lp+XSDMtN0ecpjttRRg8RqXYMp19KjFfQeMo1eJtWn T+87VSBC36RGC4aJbO5ZowUosDyVXornl6v6YDoV70rA5gZO2KRw/SBAG0c99+ASM5jt 3CoPEbkl5HFnFe6CXKVUdJzg7BeLbzyv9xS3HoP31kdX6AsXkifiYbui3EFviCf2pIck Y3VTr6vyw4dnlMN4uBHHKP8GdKPT7fAShhj5ssFL7OiycvMyAXufxkYSNaIw3rSVBa7s E4VA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gt85DYeQntqOMWrnM6/pCKEu6Rj3p6kda2kQklL3hTk=; b=p+XEXe2LXOZTtxQ9ktCfQfW69erWQxq2bZO+oALc14tIhyAi98RD088AIpxiMhPFsL jhPokpd7pJP0stlX66vkWEJ+8joBLxI0oBuE8w9n91QleSqawtSq+mX3StVKvRUal12P 08P52mUJBLzWyZ19bPyq46GOSa55Oo+Pu7aQZNZkqHOsPm25ZqsOsWAxFda1uFrUfQkv W7lK+lAy3SlKdp0ZelNZxdVfl1WUNgLTaAfr/e2dop4LefJKFVRhDdTDw7gMSv/6bEUv IQ/Yb8VSRey8b1f1Adqvu9kvIuOrUl2S2XOR4n2M40dQ23Iwo8FWeCeWuAjMA88pyDTg /hwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXlv9jQvSPwR0iS/7ZD7LGdORj949AGzMcTb5P3iaqabWBDlRWk vuiyiXoBc8YJffbl/SL4MPULrONw X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuQNR93TGAJ6XiyrrSPJUh0JOGVGpV2Rb0FEiuXDanupCfcl8nWIIW+R97r6knZXBXsfhBpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c054:: with SMTP id u20mr4957778wmc.100.1554398311129; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.146] ([92.184.102.235]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id t74sm4557064wmt.3.2019.04.04.10.18.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT) To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:18:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:12:25 +0000 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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 17:18:33 -0000 What if the smart contract platform(s) disappear? The proposal induces a very centralized system, to my knowledge all of existing sidechains whether on bitcoin or ethereum are centralized, except lightning (if we forget that someone must watch what others are doing when you are on a trek in Nepal) Now I don't get why a sidechain should be a blockchain on top on another one (given also that we can't consider bitcoin or ethereum as decentralized today, so the path might be long for the sidechains...), the latest is used to store the final state, the former does not have to store forever the intermediate states, then it could just use a decentralized system (not necessarilly blockchain-like) to store the intermediate states and maybe be a distributed escrow I know, easy to say, please do it (why not), now the fact that sidechains claim to be decentralized or that they will be is just misleading people (that's not the case of your proposal but it does not say what happens if the platforms go down) Le 04/04/2019 à 03:55, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html > > Smart contracts have traditionally been implemented as part of the consensus rules of some blokchain. Often this means creating a new blockchain, or at least a sidechain to an existing blockchain. This writeup proposes an alternative method without launching a separate blockchain or sidechain, while achieving security similar to federated sidechains and additional benefits to privacy and smart-contract-patching. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Peersm : http://www.peersm.com node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms