Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10  0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1625 bytes --]

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 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

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4646 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10  1:39 ` Paul Sztorc
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10  1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1702 bytes --]

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.


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5038 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10  1:02 [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC Tao Effect

  2017-10-10  5:19   ` Tao Effect
  2017-10-10 20:18   ` Lucas Clemente Vella
  
From: Paul Sztorc @ 2017-10-10  1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev, Tao Effect

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2274 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4911 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10  1:39 ` Paul Sztorc

  2017-10-10 11:20     ` Paul Sztorc
  2017-10-10 20:18   ` Lucas Clemente Vella
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10  5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc;  Bitcoin Dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2864 bytes --]

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8780 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10  5:19   ` Tao Effect

  2017-10-10 14:09       ` Tao Effect
  
From: Paul Sztorc @ 2017-10-10 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tao Effect;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2858 bytes --]

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
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7577 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 11:20     ` Paul Sztorc

  2017-10-10 15:09         ` Paul Sztorc
  2017-10-10 20:23         ` Lucas Clemente Vella
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc;  Bitcoin Dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3684 bytes --]

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 <mailto:truthcoin@gmail•com>> wrote:
> 
> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
> 
> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>> 
>> 
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 11934 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 14:09       ` Tao Effect

  2017-10-10 19:25           ` Tao Effect
  2017-10-10 20:23         ` Lucas Clemente Vella
  
From: Paul Sztorc @ 2017-10-10 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4292 bytes --]

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
>> <mailto:truthcoin@gmail•com>> wrote:
>>
>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect•com
>> <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>>>         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>         <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22566 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 15:09         ` Paul Sztorc

  2017-10-10 19:50             ` CryptAxe
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4671 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22931 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 19:25           ` Tao Effect

  2017-10-10 20:13               ` Tao Effect
  
From: CryptAxe @ 2017-10-10 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Tao Effect

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4857 bytes --]

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: 20322 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 19:50             ` CryptAxe

       [not found]                 ` <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: CryptAxe;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- 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 --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10  1:39 ` Paul Sztorc
  2017-10-10  5:19   ` Tao Effect

       [not found]     ` <CA+XQW1hjjY3btufV36AS7JO=CQ7TMwK7ohJ4QETbNuGWyQ6=dA@mail.gmail.com>
  
From: Lucas Clemente Vella @ 2017-10-10 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Sztorc, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

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: 1566 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 14:09       ` Tao Effect
  2017-10-10 15:09         ` Paul Sztorc

  
From: Lucas Clemente Vella @ 2017-10-10 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tao Effect, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 723 bytes --]

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 recognize a transfer from the sidechain
back into Bitcoin, you kill the purpose of the sidechain. You could as well
just change the Bitcoin to implement whatever desirable features the
sidechain would have. The whole idea of sidechains is to keep Bicoin
unchangend, and allow for the voluntary transfer of tokens out of Bitcoin
to the sidechain of your choosing.


-- 
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella@gmail•com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1250 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]     ` <CA+XQW1hjjY3btufV36AS7JO=CQ7TMwK7ohJ4QETbNuGWyQ6=dA@mail.gmail.com>

  
From: Paul Sztorc @ 2017-10-10 20:23 UTC ( / )
  To: Lucas Clemente Vella;  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" <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
[not found]                 ` <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>

  2017-10-10 20:49                     ` CryptAxe
                                       ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: James Hudon;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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 <jameshudon@gmail•com> 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 <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
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]                 ` <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>

  2017-10-10 20:49                     ` 
                                       ` 
  
From: Tao Effect @ 2017-10-10 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: James Hudon;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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 <jameshudon@gmail•com> 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 <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
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 20:43                   ` Tao Effect
  2017-10-10 20:49                     ` CryptAxe

  2017-10-11  2:04                     ` Ben Kloester
  
From: James Hudon @ 2017-10-10 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tao Effect, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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 <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 <jameshudon@gmail•com> 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 <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
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-10 20:43                   ` Tao Effect
  2017-10-10 20:49                     ` CryptAxe
  2017-10-10 20:57                     ` James Hudon

  
From: Ben Kloester @ 2017-10-11  2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tao Effect, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8888 bytes --]

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 <jameshudon@gmail•com> 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 <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
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: 13404 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]