📅 Original date posted:2017-10-10
📝 Original message:Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins.
On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171010/25fb5d8e/attachment.html>;
Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] /
npub10t…w9uu9
2023-06-07 18:07:00
in reply to nevent1q…rkew
Author Public Key
npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9Published at
2023-06-07 18:07:00Event JSON
{
"id": "aeb2780776b5777818d657b566b9e94b42ba6543874ee5b1d1e297c45ea144af",
"pubkey": "7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be",
"created_at": 1686161220,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fd580ac0183fd4c89c8d00875bacd50db237c5eb014e289c09c9a01a5d7dc865",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a9944f07e35720ed4f28390690897a5ceea481e5bad3e1bd555d29dc636b6b19",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2dae58c027d374a9ac9ad1529dad7f069996a4b442b390d1b7a56b186aa6a0c2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-10-10\n📝 Original message:Haha, no. Because you \"burned\" the coins.\n\nOn Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, \"Tao Effect\" \u003ccontact at taoeffect.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Paul,\n\u003e\n\u003e It's a two-way peg.\n\u003e\n\u003e There's nothing preventing transfers back to the main chain.\n\u003e\n\u003e They work in the exact same manner.\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Greg\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with\n\u003e the NSA.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc \u003ctruthcoin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.\n\u003e\n\u003e In fact, that is exactly what drivechain does, if one chooses parameters\n\u003e for the drivechain that make it impossible for any side-to-main transfer to\n\u003e succeed.\n\u003e\n\u003e One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.\n\u003e\n\u003e Paul\n\u003e\n\u003e On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, \"Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.\n\u003e linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Dear list,\n\u003e\n\u003e In previous arguments over Drivechain (and Drivechain-like proposals) I\n\u003e promised that better scaling proposals — that do not sacrifice Bitcoin's\n\u003e security — would come along.\n\u003e\n\u003e I planned to do a detailed writeup, but have decided to just send off this\n\u003e email with what I have, because I'm unlikely to have time to write up a\n\u003e detailed proposal.\n\u003e\n\u003e The idea is very simple (and by no means novel*), and I'm sure others have\n\u003e mentioned either exactly it, or similar ideas (e.g. burning coins) before.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e Users simply say: \"My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to Chain B\".\n\u003e\n\u003e Then they burn the coins on Chain A, and create a minting transaction on\n\u003e Chain B. The details of how to ensure that coins do not get lost needs to\n\u003e be worked out, but I'm fairly certain the folks on this list can figure out\n\u003e those details.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Thin clients, nodes, and miners, can all very easily verify that said\n\u003e action took place, and therefore accept the \"newly minted\" coins on B as\n\u003e valid.\n\u003e - Users client software now also knows where to look for the other coins\n\u003e (if for some reason it needs to).\n\u003e\n\u003e This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol as most\n\u003e of the verification is done client-side.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our ownership of\n\u003e our coins to miners to get scale.\n\u003e\n\u003e My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which case, I\n\u003e would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Greg Slepak\n\u003e\n\u003e * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with\n\u003e the NSA.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171010/25fb5d8e/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5b897e5c9529cd12024c40b3f3b71517f97c15183fb6bdd35eb7f72752286cf5ec714004ced38c30b9f94163ed93c843a4cb92b4136a229744c57cc40b05db20"
}