diff options
| author | Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> | 2013-12-17 22:50:24 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-12-17 22:50:38 +0000 |
| commit | 5487a2b4e8f0e0a0ac937b0c8619ecfcbe8b5630 (patch) | |
| tree | 5c2fe2fec19841ace55363dde003a6148da7cdfd | |
| parent | b0ff3f5a68ec54b1b02c5472d14ad995ee7606b3 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-5487a2b4e8f0e0a0ac937b0c8619ecfcbe8b5630.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-5487a2b4e8f0e0a0ac937b0c8619ecfcbe8b5630.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: MERGE transaction/script/process for forked chains
| -rw-r--r-- | f3/4c2786b47c7c2a858badf8bd00d98e9112bfd2 | 89 |
1 files changed, 89 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f3/4c2786b47c7c2a858badf8bd00d98e9112bfd2 b/f3/4c2786b47c7c2a858badf8bd00d98e9112bfd2 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a38aed794 --- /dev/null +++ b/f3/4c2786b47c7c2a858badf8bd00d98e9112bfd2 @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Vt3TK-0001Ez-7e + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1Vt3TJ-0001EP-0m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0000 +Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown + [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76]) + (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) + by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BFF51080838; + Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:45 +0000 (UTC) +From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org> +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:24 +0000 +User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.1-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) +References: <20131217224130.GC3180@nl.grid.coop> +In-Reply-To: <20131217224130.GC3180@nl.grid.coop> +X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F +X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F +X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: Text/Plain; + charset="iso-8859-1" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Message-Id: <201312172250.24887.luke@dashjr.org> +X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1Vt3TJ-0001EP-0m +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: MERGE transaction/script/process for + forked chains +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 -0000 + +On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:41:30 PM Troy Benjegerdes wrote: +> I want to get some feedback.. I've used distributed version control +> systems for a long time, and the most useful feature is to be able +> to merge two different forks. +> +> So what's the equivalent of this for Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies? +> +> Let's suppose that me and my friends get 'islanded' from the rest of +> the internet for a week, but we still want to trade bitcoin. It would +> work if there are local miners, until we reconnect. +> +> Suppose we have the main chain (Alice), while bob is on a boat, trading +> with some friends, but has no network connectivity. +> +> When bob reconnects with Alice, a 'Merge' transaction happens where a +> miner looks at bob's forked blockchain, sees no double-spends, and +> includes BOTH chains. +> +> Now suppose someone on bob's boat has a buggy client, or sent a +> transaction before disconnect that results in a double-spend on the +> merge. +> +> So we have a merge conflict, which generally requires human interaction, +> so bob and his friends broadcast a MERGE request with a transaction fee +> sufficient to cover reconciling the double-spends, AND incentivize a +> miner to do some extra work to merge. +> +> Thoughts everyone? + +This is interesting, but I'm not sure it has the right incentives. First, it +adds more reason for miners to *avoid* including transactions (they might turn +out to be double-spends and make merging costly). Second, it gives people +reason to double-spend (the miner might cover the cost of it). Finally, you +don't appear to address how to deal with the subsidy - do both miners get it? + +Luke + + |