Author: Mark Friedenbach 2014-03-25 21:03:57
Published on: 2014-03-25T21:03:57+00:00
The author of the message requests more details about a proposal and nitpicks some minor points in the introduction. They mention that moving value between chains is inconvenient as it requires trusted third parties. However, they point out that two-way atomic chain transfers can help but there are edge cases with reorganizations that can be tricky to handle, leading to inflation in the worst case scenario. The author disagrees with this claim, stating that the re-org issue is fairly handled in the 2-way pegging scheme that Greg Maxwell developed and Adam Back described on the list. Depending on the implementation, it could even be configurable by the person performing the peg, allowing the transfer to specify the confirmation depth required during the quieting period to protect against re-orgs up to a sufficient depth. The author thinks that this is worked out quite well with sufficient enumeration of edge cases, and they don't think they are particularly tricky to handle or lead to money-losing situations under the explicit security assumptions.Moreover, the author emphasizes that there is absolutely no way this scheme can lead to inflation. The worst that could happen is theft of coins willingly put into the pegging pool. But in no way is it possible to inflate the coin supply. Finally, the author suggests that the proposal should consider giving 2-way pegging a fair shake as pegging to side chains and private accounting servers may eliminate the need.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T15:44:59.125287+00:00