Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-06-22 📝 Original message:Users would tolerate ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-06-22
📝 Original message:Users would tolerate depreciation because the intention is to have a cheap
way of transacting using a two-way pegged chain that isn't controlled by
miners. Who cares about some minor depreciation when the purpose of the
chain is to do cheap secure transactions forever?
Add in UTXO commitments and you've got a system that is cheap and
secure-enough for transfer. storage and accumulation of a ledger... before
moving in to the main chain.
Seems better to me than messing with the main chain's incentive structure
via merged mining.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> I don't think that your design is competitive. Why would users tolerate a
> depreciation of X% per year, when there are alternatives which do not
> require such depreciation? It seems to me that none would.
>
> Paul
>
> On 6/20/2017 9:38 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> - a proof-of-burn sidechain is the ultimate two-way peg. you have to
> burn bitcoin *or* side-chain tokens to mine the side chain. the size of
> the burn is the degree of security. i actually wrote code to do
> randomized blind burns where you have a poisson distribution
> (non-deterministic selected burn). there is no way to game it... it's
> very similar to algorand - but it uses burns instead of staking
>
> - you can then have a secure sidechain that issues a mining reward in
> sidechain tokens, which can be aggrregated and redeemed for bitcoins. the
> result of this is that any bitcoins held in the sidechain depreciate in
> value at a rate of X% per year. this deflation rate pays for increased
> security
>
> - logically this functions like an alt coin, with high inflation and cheap
> transactions. but the altcoin is pegged to bitcoin's price because of the
> pool of unredeemed bitcoins held within the side chain.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> As you know:
>>
>> 1. If a sidechain is merged mined it basically grows out of the existing
>> Bitcoin mining network. If it has a different PoW algorithm it is a new
>> mining network.
>> 2. The security (ie, hashrate) of any mining network would be determined
>> by the total economic value of the block. In Bitcoin this is
>> (subsidy+tx_fees)*price, but since a sidechain cannot issue new tokens it
>> would only be (tx_fees)*price.
>>
>> Unfortunately the two have a nasty correlation which can lead to a
>> disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy: users will avoid a network that is too
>> insecure; and if users avoid using a network, they will stop paying txn
>> fees and so the quantity (tx_fees)*price falls toward zero, erasing the
>> network's security. So it is quite problematic and I recommend just biting
>> the bullet and going with merged mining instead.
>>
>> And, the point may be moot. Bitcoin miners may decide that, given their
>> expertise in seeking out cheap sources of power/cooling, they might as well
>> mine both/all chains. So your suggestion may not achieve your desired
>> result (and would, meanwhile, consume more of the economy's resources --
>> some of these would not contribute even to a higher hashrate).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2017 1:11 PM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to enforce that a drivechain *not* have the
>> same POW as bitcoin.
>>
>> I suspect this is the only way to be sure that a drivechain doesn't
>> destabilize the main chain and push more power to miners that already have
>> too much power.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170622/bc42c113/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Users would tolerate depreciation because the intention is to have a cheap
way of transacting using a two-way pegged chain that isn't controlled by
miners. Who cares about some minor depreciation when the purpose of the
chain is to do cheap secure transactions forever?
Add in UTXO commitments and you've got a system that is cheap and
secure-enough for transfer. storage and accumulation of a ledger... before
moving in to the main chain.
Seems better to me than messing with the main chain's incentive structure
via merged mining.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> I don't think that your design is competitive. Why would users tolerate a
> depreciation of X% per year, when there are alternatives which do not
> require such depreciation? It seems to me that none would.
>
> Paul
>
> On 6/20/2017 9:38 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>
> - a proof-of-burn sidechain is the ultimate two-way peg. you have to
> burn bitcoin *or* side-chain tokens to mine the side chain. the size of
> the burn is the degree of security. i actually wrote code to do
> randomized blind burns where you have a poisson distribution
> (non-deterministic selected burn). there is no way to game it... it's
> very similar to algorand - but it uses burns instead of staking
>
> - you can then have a secure sidechain that issues a mining reward in
> sidechain tokens, which can be aggrregated and redeemed for bitcoins. the
> result of this is that any bitcoins held in the sidechain depreciate in
> value at a rate of X% per year. this deflation rate pays for increased
> security
>
> - logically this functions like an alt coin, with high inflation and cheap
> transactions. but the altcoin is pegged to bitcoin's price because of the
> pool of unredeemed bitcoins held within the side chain.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Paul Sztorc <truthcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> As you know:
>>
>> 1. If a sidechain is merged mined it basically grows out of the existing
>> Bitcoin mining network. If it has a different PoW algorithm it is a new
>> mining network.
>> 2. The security (ie, hashrate) of any mining network would be determined
>> by the total economic value of the block. In Bitcoin this is
>> (subsidy+tx_fees)*price, but since a sidechain cannot issue new tokens it
>> would only be (tx_fees)*price.
>>
>> Unfortunately the two have a nasty correlation which can lead to a
>> disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy: users will avoid a network that is too
>> insecure; and if users avoid using a network, they will stop paying txn
>> fees and so the quantity (tx_fees)*price falls toward zero, erasing the
>> network's security. So it is quite problematic and I recommend just biting
>> the bullet and going with merged mining instead.
>>
>> And, the point may be moot. Bitcoin miners may decide that, given their
>> expertise in seeking out cheap sources of power/cooling, they might as well
>> mine both/all chains. So your suggestion may not achieve your desired
>> result (and would, meanwhile, consume more of the economy's resources --
>> some of these would not contribute even to a higher hashrate).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2017 1:11 PM, Erik Aronesty wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to enforce that a drivechain *not* have the
>> same POW as bitcoin.
>>
>> I suspect this is the only way to be sure that a drivechain doesn't
>> destabilize the main chain and push more power to miners that already have
>> too much power.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170622/bc42c113/attachment.html>;