From: James Hudon <jameshudon@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:57:03 -0700
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>
	<C216A90B-D08D-4B89-98EE-761ED303F180@taoeffect.com>
To: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <C216A90B-D08D-4B89-98EE-761ED303F180@taoeffect.com>
Message-Id: <C1F5B781-1250-46CB-A6BB-930FC548239D@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized
 scaling without Miners owning our BTC
Precedence: list

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:
>=20
> What?
>=20
> That is not correct.
>=20
> There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.
>=20
> The only difference is what chain it is on.
>=20
> It is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you =
burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.
>=20
> I will not respond to any more emails unless they=E2=80=99re from core =
developers. Gotta run.
>=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 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 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
>>=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@lists.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 =
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).
>>>>=20
>>>> Drivechain offers objectively worse security.
>>>>=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 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.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 semantics 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 =E2=80=95 as stated 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 =
sharing 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 sharing 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 =
parameters for the drivechain that make it impossible for any =
side-to-main transfer 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like =
proposals) I promised that better scaling proposals =E2=80=95 that do =
not sacrifice Bitcoin's security =E2=80=95 would come along.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, =
including Bitcoin.
>>>>>>>>=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 =
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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> - 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).
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin =
protocol as most 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 case, 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 sharing 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
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev