1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <lvella@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB67AA88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A065433
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id i124so308389wmf.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=;
b=HAlaqoy9dfZUjEe4KZHBoBZGEIe4nWj5ByHsM/kwm41Rei28MPKwzZk0lTCwQa+BwE
fhGQ/rV1KT2T6uzGvkLS9ktaCg/ajaxJqXvgwWNm4DziXHfB8CLYOdPUPj6r67KxLrab
82CjO96zNrLOlg38Qqx3RYAeDxv94UxWy3zleqlSxrYn2iJ3v7gzMP4obf15N6KB7ORh
zUD+BX75eXq2elP76S885p4gTQ2225WM3AoBl5yyn+aVOsNlRMUMPEwJkuNMMC2Oqh8G
W49CEpjIMdr/itPJnszq9ZKWVUoXoMYuxYIHJaAvXbdns9ZayzoT6IQNN6Bd6afAsrWH
dU6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=4sV0OTAbMuXOBQY9fnD9IXkzqvlkIrDUmxOqA5//chA=;
b=N3SyTDyIcBdsHVQ9Ebb9ftETiahHxwyJC5nH0mEKDuZ9LP3YTw+6Z2eN1W8V7bh7+V
nHqHh4xYt1jRCtTTEcSpdafUxN6ffSJ4K+zw7NTIpWeljHEhmsLJ6Cps6Z4PpTVwsVHb
Mxe2lg53KZvxK8Gny+5jswyXNlcQz/97Md2xw0O96OCCalUWu7CWQr9qxNaNibyjGHsE
/AII2YyzM98vvv/XVTg2Hc3XKYTOp/qlwlmqDAlXDnZ2LjDXXQyjlww2VyEvz8xK0mTQ
Mu/d2BwojPT+i0a6kPe+/EM0EfHH45B/oSrTpGJ232jKnFef/VlOdaPw6S5BoI13R0a4
zwfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVhaDY2B/z8rZ7b2vVGOnXQJ98+rg9P5S+bYlkzHIdJzUHD5Wr1
dYkGuV+DWfHIoEYPTKiovzEJVfbDLylO/T3HmlU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDEJdjncT7DUEW5+aAXgpa3YGjv1AAZQPkTTyRAb+FhqJqyioY55ad8xK43Itrd5YBy8mPwKG8TtTXrWJlRcic=
X-Received: by 10.223.136.85 with SMTP id e21mr12485625wre.37.1507666739988;
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.86.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16D7672F-AA36-47D7-AAEF-E767B9CE09FF@taoeffect.com>
<CA+XQW1jf-6HCic4beV5GSix8KRzJ-7nTc-ePipfs=ouwvHX0jA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Clemente Vella <lvella@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:18:39 -0300
Message-ID: <CAGCathy2U7+Qy4gLB0S_j-kArvGHuELDgzweFR4grQQ9AZgAbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114925387a104d055b3704e8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:21:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized
scaling without Miners owning our BTC
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:19:02 -0000
--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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
--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2017=
-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way=
.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">In fact, that is exact=
ly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters for the drivechain that =
make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to succeed.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div>One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages=
.</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>I understand the first-move=
r disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the new chain is Pareto optima=
l, 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 foll=
ows, the movement succeeds beyond turning back, and every buffalo benefited=
, both those who attacked the lion and those that didn't (because the l=
ion was chased away or killed).<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div>-- <br><div=
class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature">Lucas Clement=
e Vella<br><a href=3D"mailto:lvella@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">lvella@gma=
il.com</a></div>
</div></div>
--001a114925387a104d055b3704e8--
|
