Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Ben Kloester via bitcoin-dev]

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:

> 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  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 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 
> 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 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev]

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’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  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 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 
> 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-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 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[James Hudon via 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?
--
hudon

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:43, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev 
>  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’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  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 
>>>  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" 
  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 
>  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  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-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" 
  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*), 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev]

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  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 
>>  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" 
>>>  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 
  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  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-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" 
>>>  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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev]

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"  wrote:

2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev :

> 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).

-- 
Lucas Clemente Vella
lve...@gmail.com
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev]

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  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-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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Tao Effect via 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.

--
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 
>  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  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-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" 
>  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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev]

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 > > 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-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"
>>> >> > 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Tao Effect via 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.

--
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-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" 
>> > > 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 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev]

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-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" 
>  > 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 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev]

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-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"  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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

[Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev]

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