Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.100 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.100; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:34:31 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
Message-ID: <20150206013431.GO32226@muck>
References: <709AAA00-A40A-42EF-A17D-9B3E07FE902A@bitsofproof.com>
	<417518B4-1E4D-4467-BC87-95C9EAF0C599@bitsofproof.com>
	<CA+s+GJAe9MeO+Sr0+2BRwu3q-Be5JQt_s_xdnBBEcquXqOyxcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141211120916.E912EE22B92@quidecco.de>
	<B8D7AE7E-567E-4656-9231-17EEAD6ED603@bitsofproof.com>
	<AEDF060A-17E7-4519-950A-30974D1520E3@bitsofproof.com>
	<20141215123942.GA28381@savin.petertodd.org>
	<20150204135443.2907FE2DCAD@quidecco.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DH4/xewco2zMcht6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150204135443.2907FE2DCAD@quidecco.de>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of
 burn	on parent chain
Precedence: list


--DH4/xewco2zMcht6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> Hi there,
>=20
> comments in-line:
>=20
> >> I later wrote up the idea in the context of adding Zerocoin to
> >> Bitcoin:
> >>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/=
msg02472.html
> >>
>=20
> For the sake of maximum clarity with respect to modelling the value of
> a Bitcoin, I don't think that approaches which change the number
> of coins that can possibly be circulated should be encouraged.
>=20
> So, I like the idea of having the "sacrificed" coins appearing in the
> mining fees in a future block. But what is meant with OP_DEPTH in this
> context? From what I read, this operation just manipulates the stack
> size when evaluating the script, so I don't see how it would
> affect miner incentives.

Oh, where I was saying OP_DEPTH, I was referring to a *hypothetical*
opcode; I'd forgotten when I wrote that post that OP_DEPTH is an real
opcode.

These days I'd suggest you use the (upcoming on BTC/live on Viacoin)
OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode instead. Pretty simple really:

    <current blockheight + 1 year worth of blocks> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000165ecbd638ec09226f84c34d3d775d34ca5df4abfa8cb57c

--DH4/xewco2zMcht6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=mujj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DH4/xewco2zMcht6--