Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC
16 messages, 10 to 11 Oct 2017. Started by Tao Effect.
Tao Effect (6), Paul Sztorc (4), CryptAxe (2), Lucas Clemente Vella (2), James Hudon, Ben Kloester
Dear list,
In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning coins) before.
This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including 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 get lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out those details.
- Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other 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.
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-main 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 — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning coins) before.
This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including 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 get lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out those details.
- Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other 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.
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
Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com> wrote:
Quoted text (85 lines)
> 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 <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 any side-to-main 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 — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's > security — 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning coins) before. > > This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including 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 get lost needs to > be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out > those details. > > - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other 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 > > > >
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 — as stated in the OP.
If you don't like the word "burn", pick another one.
I think this response speaks for itself.
On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
Quoted text (118 lines)
> 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 — 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 <truthcoin@gmail•com >> <mailto:truthcoin@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. >> >> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com >> <mailto:contact@taoeffect.com>> 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 <truthcoin@gmail•com >>> <mailto: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 any >>> side-to-main 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 >>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like >>> proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals — that >>> do not sacrifice Bitcoin's security — 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 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 >>> ideas (e.g. burning coins) before. >>> >>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, >>> including 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 get lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly >>> certain the folks on this list can figure out those details. >>> >>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the >>> other 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 >>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> >>> >>> >> >
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 they want to trust (the miners of the various sidechains).
Drivechain offers objectively worse security.
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:
Quoted text (144 lines)
> 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 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 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 — 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 <truthcoin@gmail•com> wrote: > > Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. > > On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com> 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 <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 any side-to-main 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 — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's >> security — 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning coins) >> before. >> >> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including >> 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 get lost needs to >> be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out >> those details. >> >> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other 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 > >
It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org>:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> 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-main transfer to > succeed. > > One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages. >
I understand the first-mover disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optimal, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the original chain, but in some so much better to justify the change, the initial resistance is an unstable equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes attacking a lion: the first buffalo to attack is in awful disadvantage, but if a critical mass of the herd follows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited, both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the lion was chased away or killed).
2017-10-10 11:09 GMT-03:00 Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org>:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent to the > amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from — as stated in > the OP. >
If you have to change Bitcoin to recognize a transfer from the sidechain back into Bitcoin, you kill the purpose of the sidechain. You could as well just change the Bitcoin to implement whatever desirable features the sidechain would have. The whole idea of sidechains is to keep Bicoin unchangend, and allow for the voluntary transfer of tokens out of Bitcoin to the sidechain of your choosing.
What if two sidechains are implemented at once? What if people get excited about one sidechain today, but a second even-better one is published the very next week? What if the original mainchain decides to integrate the features of the sidechain that you just one-way pegged to?
In these cases, the user looses money, whereas in the two-way peg they would not lose a thing.
While the one-way peg is interesting, it really doesn't compare.
Paul
On Oct 10, 2017 4:19 PM, "Lucas Clemente Vella" <lvella@gmail•com> wrote:
2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists. linuxfoundation.org>:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> 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-main transfer to > succeed. > > One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages. >
I understand the first-mover disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optimal, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the original chain, but in some so much better to justify the change, the initial resistance is an unstable equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes attacking a lion: the first buffalo to attack is in awful disadvantage, but if a critical mass of the herd follows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited, both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the lion was chased away or killed).
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’re from core developers. Gotta run.
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:
Quoted text (199 lines)
> 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’re from core developers. > 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 <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 > 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 <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" < > 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 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 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 ― 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 <truthcoin@gmail•com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com> > 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 <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 any side-to-main > 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 ― that do not sacrifice > Bitcoin's security ― 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning > coins) before. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including > 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 get > lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list > can figure out those details. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other > 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 >
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?
I don't get it. At the moment, the number of Bitcoin is fixed (at 21 million) by the geometric decay of the block reward.
Adding any other means of creating coins besides the existing block reward, or altering the block reward schedule, is extremely likely to be seen as messing with fixed supply. And not adding another method to create coins wouldn't work - because then redemptions would have to come out of miner's block reward, which I don't imagine they're going to share just because you ask.
The only way you might convince users that adding a second way to mint coins is not messing with fixed supply, is if there is some kind of proof that the number of coins being minted is accounted for by past burnt coins. We could call this 'regeneration'. But then you also need a way to prevent double-regeneration, in which the same burnt coins are used as proof twice.
And you would also need per-sidechain accounting, so that you can't just regenerate burnt coins that were originally burnt for sidechain A when all you have is coins on sidechain B. But where to put all this logic? Building a system that enforces the accounting for sidechains into Bitcoin, as Lucas pointed out, is not much different to just building the sidechain itself directly into Bitcoin.
And if you did assemble all that, what you have anyway is a two way peg, which I suspect will be isomorphic to the very sidechain proposals you seem to be criticising/attempting to do better than.
*Ben Kloester*
On 11 October 2017 at 07:43, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (199 lines)
> 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’re from core developers. > 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 <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 > 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 <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" < > 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 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 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 ― 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 <truthcoin@gmail•com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com> > 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 <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 any side-to-main > 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 ― that do not sacrifice > Bitcoin's security ― 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 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 ideas (e.g. burning > coins) before. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including > 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 get > lost needs to be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list > can figure out those details. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very 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 to look for the other > 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 >