[bitcoin-dev] Generalized sharding protocol for decentralized scaling without Miners owning our BTC

Paul Sztorc truthcoin at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 20:23:45 UTC 2017

What if two sidechains are implemented at once? What if people get excited
about one sidechain today, but a second even-better one is published the
very next week? What if the original mainchain decides to integrate the
features of the sidechain that you just one-way pegged to?

In these cases, the user looses money, whereas in the two-way peg they
would not lose a thing.

While the one-way peg is interesting, it really doesn't compare.


On Oct 10, 2017 4:19 PM, "Lucas Clemente Vella" <lvella at gmail.com> wrote:

2017-10-09 22:39 GMT-03:00 Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.

> 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.

I understand the first-mover disadvantages, but I keep thinking that if the
new chain is Pareto optimal, i.e. is in all aspects at least good as the
original chain, but in some so much better to justify the change, the
initial resistance is an unstable equilibrium. Like a herd of buffaloes
attacking a lion: the first buffalo to attack is in awful disadvantage, but
if a critical mass of the herd follows, the movement succeeds beyond
turning back, and every buffalo benefited, both those who attacked the lion
and those that didn't (because the lion was chased away or killed).

Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171010/a29725fb/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list