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
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4EB49CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (mail-qg0-f51.google.com
[209.85.192.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0A8145
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgeg42 with SMTP id g42so7346116qge.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=3cnvt+XeArHK0jpKNSqFNup7phpnWP4WFsPnB1MG8go=;
b=AQca8XSq5MVeXfliVYBPYBrGnAU2ziuVHHEXjEP6l12+LbRZ/Hs3n9In4wyqj4EbDs
kwWyxeo/GLy+Ttft5PtUf265Oe7w91iAHX0nDPcBmcJjYaMN3SMFUhyrFSO98Etp3W05
A8qWkQd0JMPWyNt9Pl09uVfn3zfblXcVNbwsElhBhiPl2rq303uKkEgbyPp8UzRPSqI4
ZG/GU9HUqJMTClIobCs4kKlLF+IomXaLVtHcXMZgnmRzsfmpbHNJhQ4JP9UDJXFlLcMs
wpK4buhIYLKEs0ERTkQUuGzBdsBhfxrvXF5POuqkUxevofiH0oJC2GjR+YcIA17nT3e6
s4Rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.196.8 with SMTP id r8mr25743316qha.25.1439999303861;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <46e6bf2dbd8e08745f1c0dbd9f62bc7d@xbt.hk>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
<CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp69g8H4Was2qzixPq3qwQ_smzzeFpE+y2GYEK6F4kUrw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
<CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com>
<55D467AF.5030203@riseup.net>
<46e6bf2dbd8e08745f1c0dbd9f62bc7d@xbt.hk>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:48:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUwm2823NN9qxC3vEqosPStuqka-bxf4JXUPgykMJO-QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
MALFORMED_FREEMAIL,
MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
experimental hardfork?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:26 -0000
--001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually,
> Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they
> would not adopt XT. So they must not be the leader in this revolution.
> Again, miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good
> price, and that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors.
>
So, the exchanges get together to "encourage" the miners to start running
bitcoin-XT. What would they do?
One scheme would be to create a taint system. All non-XT coinbases outputs
are marked as tainted. All outputs are tainted if any of the inputs into a
transaction are tainted. Tainted coins can only be un-tainted by sending
0.5% of their value to the public address of one of the participating
exchanges (or to OP_RETURN). They could slowly ratchet up the surcharge.
Exchanges in the cartel agree not to exchange tainted coins. Even if some
still do, the tainted coins are still inherently less valuable, since fewer
exchanges accept them.
Schemes like that are the main way for non-miners to flex their muscles,
even if they seem unsavory.
Taint tracking would allow merchants to participate. They could give less
credit for tainted bitcoins, even if the exchanges are trying to remain
neutral. If that happens, the exchanges could run 2 prices, BTC and
BTC-tainted.
On the other hand, implementing taint machinery is a bad thing for
fungibility.
It can also be accomplished with checkpointing. They need to create 1 big
block and then agree to checkpoint it.
A less strict rule rule could be that blocks after the first big block
count as double POW. That means that the big block chain only needs 34% of
the hashing power to win.
--001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex">
Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, =
Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they wo=
uld not adopt XT. So they must not be the leader in this revolution. Again,=
miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good price, an=
d that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors.<br></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>So, the exchanges get together to "enco=
urage" the miners to start running bitcoin-XT.=C2=A0 What would they d=
o?<br><br></div><div>One scheme would be to create a taint system.=C2=A0 Al=
l non-XT coinbases outputs are marked as tainted.=C2=A0 All outputs are tai=
nted if any of the inputs into a transaction are tainted.=C2=A0 Tainted coi=
ns can only be un-tainted by sending 0.5% of their value to the public addr=
ess of one of the participating exchanges (or to OP_RETURN).=C2=A0 They cou=
ld slowly ratchet up the surcharge.<br><br></div><div>Exchanges in the cart=
el agree not to exchange tainted coins.=C2=A0 Even if some still do, the ta=
inted coins are still inherently less valuable, since fewer exchanges accep=
t them.<br></div><div><br></div>Schemes like that are the main way for non-=
miners to flex their muscles, even if they seem unsavory.<br><div><br></div=
><div>Taint tracking would allow merchants to participate.=C2=A0 They could=
give less credit for tainted bitcoins, even if the exchanges are trying to=
remain neutral.=C2=A0 If that happens, the exchanges could run 2 prices, B=
TC and BTC-tainted.<br><br></div><div>On the other hand, implementing taint=
machinery is a bad thing for fungibility.<br></div><div><br></div><div>It =
can also be accomplished with checkpointing.=C2=A0 They need to create 1 bi=
g block and then agree to checkpoint it.<br><br></div><div>A less strict ru=
le rule could be that blocks after the first big block count as double POW.=
=C2=A0 That means that the big block chain only needs 34% of the hashing po=
wer to win.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612--
|
