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

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.

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

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. > >

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

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)

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

2017-10-10 11:09 GMT-03:00 Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > 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 reco

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

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 develo

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

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

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

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 >

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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 ne

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

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 —

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

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'

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

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

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

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

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

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 v

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

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'