Published on: 2014-11-03T19:38:27+00:00
The provided context includes a PGP signed message with a hash value of SHA512, containing links to two cryptography-related websites: IACR and DES. The first link leads to the proceedings of Eurocrypt 2002, a conference on cryptology, while the second link directs to the accepted papers for Asiacrypt 2014, another cryptographic conference. Within these links, there is a message from Andrew Poelstra mentioning a "false proof" without further explanation. The authenticity and integrity of the message are confirmed by the signature at the end.The discussion revolves around the distinction between hardness and likelihood of successful attack. It is explained that fraudulent transfers can occur without reorganization if an attacker produces a fake SPV proof. This type of attack does not require the attacker to own coins. However, in the absence of reorganization, the false proof will be invalidated by proof of longer work on the real chain.There is a conversation between Alex Mizrahi and an unknown person discussing the security model of sidechains. It is argued that anyone with sufficient hashpower can unlock a locked coin on the parent chain by producing an SPV proof. However, if the majority of sidechain miners continue working on the honest chain, a reorg proof can be submitted during the contest period to invalidate this "unlockment" on the parent chain. The security model of sidechains relies on the assumption that an attacker won't control a majority of the network.The article explains the concept of miners in blockchain technology and how they prove computational work to achieve stable consensus on the blockchain history. Sidechains are discussed, where anyone with sufficient hashpower can unlock a locked coin on the parent chain by producing an SPV proof. This eliminates the incentive for miners to behave honestly in sidechains as they only receive transaction fees as rewards. The security of sidechains is compared to Bitcoin's security, relying on the assumption that an attacker won't control a majority of the network.In a mailing list discussion, Alex Mizrahi criticizes a paper on sidechains as "wishful thinking," arguing that it is based on the assumption that Bitcoin's decentralized mining model is secure, which he believes may not always be true. The paper discusses hashpower attacks and reorganizations and suggests longer contest periods for transfers to make fraudulent transfers more difficult.A paper on side-chains, two-way pegs, and compact SPV proofs has been written by Blockstream, Andrew Poelstra, and Andrew Miller. However, minimal discussion of the paper's contents has occurred, other than Peter Todd's reaction on Reddit. The paper suggests that sidechains will be secure because they use DMMS (distributed market-based mechanism security), which is also used by alt-coins but not as secure as Bitcoin. The authors mention a problem with hashpower attack resistance that needs to be solved before the proposal is viable.Adam Back and his co-authors published a paper on side-chains, two-way pegs, and compact SPV proofs. The paper outlines how Bitcoin can be moved into and out of a side-chain to achieve interoperability. There is a discussion about Satoshi's whitepaper and terminology related to Bitcoin, altcoins, altchains, and blockchains. Two-way pegging is discussed as a way to enable interoperability between Bitcoin and side-chains using SPV proofs of burn. The concept of a beta network is also proposed to test new features before implementing them on the main network.Daniel Murrell posted a paper on a mailing list and requested feedback on his website. Bryan Bishop responded, suggesting that the frequency of these messages should be toned down. Jeff Garzik, a Bitcoin core developer, also participated in the discussion. The main topic of discussion is the paper and side-chains.In an email exchange, Daniel Murrell apologized for posting his paper to a mailing list and advertising it on his website. Bryan Bishop responded, suggesting that Murrell should tone down the frequency of his posts. The discussion focuses on the paper and side-chains.A person named Daniel Murrell sent a message stating that he was not trying to monetize his website but simply wanted to create something useful. Another user named Bryan responded, suggesting toning down the frequency of posts. Bryan's contact information was included in the message.The email thread discusses enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. A paper by Adam Back and other authors describes how Bitcoin can be moved into and out of side chains with different parameters or experimental features. Greg Maxwell proposed a compact way to do 2-way pegging using SPV proofs. Private chains are also discussed as a possibility for higher scaling while retaining Bitcoin security properties.The Bitcoin community has developed a process called 2-way pegging, allowing users to move Bitcoin between the main blockchain and side chains with different parameters or experimental features. The discussion involves several Bitcoin experts, including Greg Maxwell, Matt Corallo, Pieter Wuille, Jorge Timon, Mark Freidenbach.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T10:30:50.336112+00:00