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 <crypt...@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 <truthc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <cont...@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 <truthc...@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
