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

From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect•com>
To: CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:13:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <B822901D-C074-4987-B793-2A83C8C83EAF@taoeffect.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF5CFkg71g5vTCQ3rcbN+7Cjx_B3z7NT78Ug6a6S=KiSS8yo-A@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5526 bytes --]

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
>> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20798 bytes --]