From: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail•com>
To: Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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 16:23:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+XQW1giGJxq9WWZ1XRuKM4kPeSOU018eBgX1MZhEVsH1EwzKQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XQW1hjjY3btufV36AS7JO=CQ7TMwK7ohJ4QETbNuGWyQ6=dA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]
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>:
> 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
lvella@gmail•com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2651 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-10 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-10 1:02 Tao Effect
2017-10-10 1:39 ` Paul Sztorc
2017-10-10 5:19 ` Tao Effect
2017-10-10 11:20 ` Paul Sztorc
2017-10-10 14:09 ` Tao Effect
2017-10-10 15:09 ` Paul Sztorc
2017-10-10 19:25 ` Tao Effect
2017-10-10 19:50 ` CryptAxe
2017-10-10 20:13 ` Tao Effect
[not found] ` <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
2017-10-10 20:43 ` Tao Effect
2017-10-10 20:49 ` CryptAxe
2017-10-10 20:57 ` James Hudon
2017-10-11 2:04 ` Ben Kloester
2017-10-10 20:23 ` Lucas Clemente Vella
2017-10-10 20:18 ` Lucas Clemente Vella
[not found] ` <CA+XQW1hjjY3btufV36AS7JO=CQ7TMwK7ohJ4QETbNuGWyQ6=dA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-10-10 20:23 ` Paul Sztorc [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-10-10 0:04 Tao Effect
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+XQW1giGJxq9WWZ1XRuKM4kPeSOU018eBgX1MZhEVsH1EwzKQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=truthcoin@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lvella@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox