James Hudon [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2017-10-10 to 2017-10-10
💬 Posted a total of 1 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories:
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:07:04

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-10-10
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev