Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=cp932
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
In-Reply-To: <F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:43:17 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C216A90B-D08D-4B89-98EE-761ED303F180@taoeffect.com>
References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com>
	<CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CAABF4-4FB8-4230-8E51-014C1D347D72@taoeffect.com>
	<CA+XQW1i-3dfRGr2vy=_P0BuXNbnoR_OmmOGGOmCcNEgkZeT_gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<FBD96A02-243E-4E09-9204-EC90DE5EE576@taoeffect.com>
	<daf438d1-7cca-aa0f-6bf7-3eef0d765d49@gmail.com>
	<B79CD106-A06E-4AF1-B67E-6DFE557468F8@taoeffect.com>
	<CAF5CFkg71g5vTCQ3rcbN+7Cjx_B3z7NT78Ug6a6S=KiSS8yo-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B822901D-C074-4987-B793-2A83C8C83EAF@taoeffect.com>
	<F437D8FA-892B-46C7-B0B8-8B5487DD8034@gmail.com>
To: James Hudon <jameshudon@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
Precedence: list

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-withdr=
aw you mint on another chain.

I will not respond to any more emails unless they=81fre from core developers=
. Gotta run.

--
Sent from my mobile device.
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing wi=
th the NSA.

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> You're asking for newly minted bitcoin to go to you but you burned the bit=
coin 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 bit=
coin 2 times (once for your original bitcoin, again to make you whole). Why w=
ould they agree to this?
> --
> hudon
>=20
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.
>>=20
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device.
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing=
 with the NSA.
>>=20
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why?=20
>>>=20
>>> On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Sheesh.
>>>=20
>>> Whereas in Drivechain users are forced to give up their coins to a singl=
e group for whatever sidechains they interact with, the generic sharding alg=
o lets them (1) keep their coins, (2) trust whatever group they want to trus=
t (the miners of the various sidechains).
>>>=20
>>> Drivechain offers objectively worse security.
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile device.
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharin=
g with the NSA.
>>>=20
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> I think this response speaks for itself.
>>>>=20
>>>>> On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the se=
mantics of the word "burn".
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The "burning" applies to the original coins you had.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> When you transfer them back, you get newly minted coins, equivalent to=
 the amount you "burned" on the chain you're transferring from =81\ as state=
d in the OP.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> If you don't like the word "burn", pick another one.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> --
>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also shar=
ing with the NSA.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:=

>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> It's a two-way peg.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> There's nothing preventing transfers back to the main chain.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> They work in the exact same manner.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sha=
ring with the NSA.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com> wrote:=

>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parame=
ters for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfe=
r to succeed.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, "Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals=
) I promised that better scaling proposals =81\ that do not sacrifice Bitcoi=
n's security =81\ would come along.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have decided to just send of=
f this email with what I have, because I'm unlikely to have time to write up=
 a detailed proposal.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> The idea is very simple (and by no means novel*), and I'm sure other=
s have mentioned either exactly it, or similar ideas (e.g. burning coins) be=
fore.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including B=
itcoin.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Users simply say: "My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to Chain=
 B".
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and create a minting transactio=
n on Chain B. The details of how to ensure that coins do not get lost needs t=
o be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure ou=
t those details.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify that s=
aid 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 c=
oins (if for some reason it needs to).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol as m=
ost of the verification is done client-side.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our ownership=
 of our coins to miners to get scale.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which ca=
se, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Greg Slepak
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sh=
aring with the NSA.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20