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
149
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1Y7Fhk-0005X0-CJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 03:48:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.149.113 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.149.113; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail149113.authsmtp.com;
Received: from outmail149113.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.113])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Y7Fhi-0006lo-C9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 03:48:44 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t033mYFW003033;
Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:48:34 GMT
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t033mUK5077640
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Sat, 3 Jan 2015 03:48:32 GMT
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 22:48:29 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Message-ID: <20150103034829.GP6538@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tqN4RWvJTb9VNux/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 63645fe6-92fb-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdgEUElQaAgsB AmMbW1deVFV7WmE7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRwC BUN7KRxycAJAfH4+ ZEdkV3QVWkd8cUMr
F0hJHG9QN3phaTUb TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNB8E FVg8GjEyG1EMXTR7
IxE+LUUdAA4bNUM+ KjMG
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Y7Fhi-0006lo-C9
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds
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, 03 Jan 2015 03:48:44 -0000
--tqN4RWvJTb9VNux/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 04:21:02PM -0300, Sergio Lerner wrote:
> I propose to allow miners to voluntarily lock funds by letting miners
> add additional inputs to the coinbase transaction. Currently the
> coinbase transaction does not allow any real input to be added (only a
> pseudo-input).
> This is a hard-fork, and we could include it the next time a hardfork is
> made.
> The modifications to the code are minimal (no more than 12 lines
> modified where IsCoinBase() is called), and they generally involve
> removing code, not adding.
>=20
> Why ?
>=20
> Because sometime in the future (maybe 5-10 years) we may have to deal
> with problems of securing the blockchain, as the subsidy is lowered. We
> don't want the number of confirmation blocks to be increased in
> compensation because Bitcoin won't be able to compete with other payment
> networks.
> Then by having this hardfork now, we will be able to soft-fork later to
> any rule we may came come up with involving deposit bonds,
> proof-of-stake, and the penalization of double-mining (mining two blocks
> at the same height) to prevent short-range attacks.
>=20
> Can it hurt?
>=20
> No. I doesn't not change the incentives or the security in any way, as
It definitely does change the incentives as it makes it easy and secure
to pay miners to mine specific blocks rather than specific transactions.
For instance I could securely pay a miner to mine a re-org in a specific
way, something I can't do right now. From the perspective of "the
blockchain must move forward" this is worrying. I have proposed this
idea before myself for my PowPay(1) micropayments scheme, but on
reflection I don't think it's a good idea anymore.
PowPay in general is an idea I'm now rather dubious about: it works much
better with large mining pools, which would further incentivise pools to
get bigger. In general we want mining to be dumber, not smarter, to keep
the overhead of it as small as possible to getting into it is as easy as
possible.
re: hard-fork vs. soft-fork, Gregory Maxwell's comments elsewhere in the
thread are what I'd say myself.
1) [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase TxOut Hashcash,
Peter Todd, May 10th 2013,
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/ms=
g02159.html
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008bb7f424d81b7a0ea568086f4d320c2867705f88c27bb0a
--tqN4RWvJTb9VNux/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=Vebm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tqN4RWvJTb9VNux/--
|
