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 <truthc...@gmail.com > <mailto:truthc...@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
