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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <kalle@rosenbaum.se>) id 1Z1H4e-0004Gc-SP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:35:56 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z1H4d-0000cR-Sp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:35:56 +0000
Received: by qcxw10 with SMTP id w10so39436012qcx.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=6jj48yoqlPjk7VW1iezPVNaGw9RfjRfdOSpPXETV7I8=;
b=WINkJSNd4rqcjjT4NE1tg1QINc6hP6yph2Pzd5OkJzKy+ZrRlRUrpTaudL0S0X5E0W
/g6XIJfFAUWucudL5AIpG89O/uTERtNDKK5Foda+nz0q6wcuYk78ehNHL4ns0Qa+gm5p
HyBqipWIhHDBfl6ScLCEBiYQo3BlgwRQrcJ2WZBrMm7YR+B+hC7V1EwVzbn6Ut4qyTD+
lxC4iabLSNjaSDuabDwH21cASwv71p826JUgjIr+Gk01dKn8SKUc99Emz++E6N96rDF9
kNEEClWLocMUohdXcFsNzE6wV1HVtgzx5a6zH7JkXu8PI3dSgJ6v/AfbyqVkKY18kExx
rkHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm2wYKQ+fPcqQ+4/MXh0rP4i8qbziegv1kk7tQDBamjDJKl2oLz55EC2q2Ap3FzWeigLVW7
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.25.145 with SMTP id 17mr17286505qkz.46.1433608550447;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.145.9 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150606153247.GA19619@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAPswA9w5Sgg6AV=9Pqx5sqbkdrwv9LmwoxmMu7xZsQSNXtmZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201506061518.19431.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAPg+sBg+rE-0cxMU480Fierq_dU+=93LBD+vDatGdcSkPbvjqA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150606153247.GA19619@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 18:35:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPswA9wSjcCNh0MAmOicPuOvBo03Wecn5Y6FkngeqedKHoUJpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kalle Rosenbaum <kalle@rosenbaum.se>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z1H4d-0000cR-Sp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:35:56 -0000
2015-06-06 17:32 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 05:23:48PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I also agree with Pieter, that this should *not* be so cleanly compatible
>> > with Bitcoin transactions. If you wish to share code, perhaps using an
>> > invalid opcode rather than OP_RETURN would be appropriate.
>>
>>
>> Using an invalid opcode would merely send funds into the void. It wouldn't
>> invalidate the transaction.
>
> Just set nLockTime to 500000000-1 and nSequence appropriately to make
> the transaction impossible to mine for the next 9500 years.
Actually, I suggested that on this list on april 27, but shortly after
rejected my own idea:
#######################
"Or a really high lock_time, but it would not make it invalid, just delayed."
Ok, this was a bad idea, since nodes would have to keep it in memory.
Please disregard that idea...
########################
Now I think I rejected it on based on a misunderstanding. Nodes will
not put them in their mempool unless it's value is near in time,
right? From the 0.9.0 release notes: "Accept nLockTime transactions
that finalize in the next block".
In that case this is a really nice option.
>
> Though I agree that this whole idea seems a bit dubious to me.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000000000dd919214b66444dcebb4aa0214c1ab7c8b3b633be71f
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
