1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1QwGbM-0003PC-9f
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:46:52 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qy0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QwGbH-0000SR-U7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:46:52 +0000
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so1129196qyk.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.31.67 with SMTP id x3mr3714544qcc.292.1314204402278; Wed,
24 Aug 2011 09:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.114.206 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:46:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QwGbH-0000SR-U7
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
schedule a blockchain split?
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:46:52 -0000
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> - Replace hard limits (like 1 MB maximum block size) with something that =
can
> dynamically adapt with the times. Maybe based on difficulty so it can't b=
e
> gamed?
Too early for that.
> - Adjust difficulty every block, without limits, based on a N-block slidi=
ng
> =C2=A0window. I think this would solve the issue when the hashrate drops
> =C2=A0overnight, but maybe also add a block time limit, or perhaps includ=
e the
> =C2=A0"current block" in the difficulty calculation?
The quantized scheme limits the amount of difficulty skew miners can
create by lying about timestamps to about a half a percent. A rolling
window with the same time constant would allow much more skew.
> Replacing the "Satoshi" 64-bit integers with
> "Satoshi" variable-size fractions (ie, infinite numerator + denominator)
Increasing precision I would agree with but, sadly, causing people to
need more than 64 bit would create a lot of bugs.
infinite numerator + denominator is absolutely completely and totally
batshit insane. For one, it has weird consequences that the same value
can have redundant encodings.
Most importantly, it suffers factor inflation: If you spend inputs
1/977 1/983 1/991 1/997 the smallest denominator you can use for the
output 948892238557.
Not to mention that the idiots writing financial software can only
barely manage to not use radix-2 floating point on everything. Asking
them to use arbitrary rational numbers with mixed radix will never
fly.
> - Remove the 100 confirmation requirement for spending generated coins. I=
f
> they are respent before 100 confirmations, clients can/should flag the n=
ew
> outputs as also "generated" or "recently generated" so recipients are aw=
are
> of the risk.
Please lets not make bitcoin _less_ trustworthy.
The 100 block maturity on generated coins is good. The generation from
an orphaning is lost forever like the losing side of a double spend,
but far far worse... because orphaning happens all the time on its own
without any malice.
I agree it's obnoxious that you can't pad your generation payouts
without creating more transactions, but I don't see a solution for
that. Repeat the addresses... make up for it by increasing your payout
threshold.
|
