📅 Original date posted:2017-10-10
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
Tao Effect [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r0…vdpg3
2023-06-07 18:07:03
in reply to nevent1q…wray
Author Public Key
npub1r0g954grld59fuphzsypmuuhpdunq67f729afmp44h2mxvth2hts4vdpg3Published at
2023-06-07 18:07:03Event JSON
{
"id": "597681baae57e772d2da6f90710eca508c54061467b1863d097123c736574d45",
"pubkey": "1bd05a5503fb6854f03714081df3970b79306bc9f28bd4ec35add5b3317755d7",
"created_at": 1686161223,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fd580ac0183fd4c89c8d00875bacd50db237c5eb014e289c09c9a01a5d7dc865",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dd17e51e39a1294e2e25019dcb2899df903ef067271cb6b8890194566b8e2881",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-10-10\n📝 Original message:What?\n\nThat is not correct.\n\nThere is a fixed amount of Bitcoin, as I said.\n\nThe only difference is what chain it is on.\n\nIt is precisely because there is a fixed amount that when you burn-to-withdraw you mint on another chain.\n\nI will not respond to any more emails unless they’re from core developers. Gotta run.\n\n--\nSent from my mobile device.\nPlease do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\n\u003e On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:23 PM, James Hudon \u003cjameshudon at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e 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?\n\u003e --\n\u003e hudon\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017, at 13:13, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e It would not change the number of Bitcoins in existence.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Sent from my mobile device.\n\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:50 PM, CryptAxe \u003ccryptaxe at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Your method would change the number of Bitcoins in existence. Why? \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017 12:47 PM, \"Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Is that what passes for a technical argument these days? Sheesh.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e 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).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Drivechain offers objectively worse security.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Sent from my mobile device.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I think this response speaks for itself.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On 10/10/2017 10:09 AM, Tao Effect wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi Paul,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I thought it was clear, but apparently you are getting stuck on the semantics of the word \"burn\".\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e The \"burning\" applies to the original coins you had.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e If you don't like the word \"burn\", pick another one.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:20 AM, Paul Sztorc \u003ctruthcoin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Haha, no. Because you \"burned\" the coins.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, \"Tao Effect\" \u003ccontact at taoeffect.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Paul,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It's a two-way peg.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e There's nothing preventing transfers back to the main chain.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e They work in the exact same manner.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Greg\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Paul Sztorc \u003ctruthcoin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e That is only a one-way peg, not a two-way.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e One-way pegs have strong first-mover disadvantages.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Paul\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Oct 9, 2017 9:24 PM, \"Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Dear list,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e This is a generic sharding protocol for all blockchains, including Bitcoin.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Users simply say: \"My coins on Chain A are going to be sent to Chain B\".\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e - 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.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e - Users client software now also knows where to look for the other coins (if for some reason it needs to).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e This doesn't even need much modification to the Bitcoin protocol as most of the verification is done client-side.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It is fully decentralized, and there's no need to give our ownership of our coins to miners to get scale.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e My sincere apologies if this has been brought up before (in which case, I would be very grateful for a link to the proposal).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Greg Slepak\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e * This idea is similar in spirit to Interledger.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e",
"sig": "21c03f5ece7007435fd31589395745d1f6233f8010360fadf3202295fdd39c9d8f118c17069430384b64c452d6758fc3a672d488ad1d8866189acd2a5f89d530"
}