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 <jameshu...@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@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 <crypt...@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@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@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 <truthc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Haha, no. Because you "burned" the coins. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017 1:20 AM, "Tao Effect" <cont...@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 <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> 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 >>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
