summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/98/d2f4071412e039cea1f968dda9e7f48cfa3443
blob: 47df9358db53f6cfe7a26f46c2c3303799f363b3 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1UZV55-00031l-IF
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 May 2013 23:44:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.108 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.108; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148108.authsmtp.net; 
Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.108])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1UZV54-0003YF-EZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 06 May 2013 23:44:31 +0000
Received: from mail-c226.authsmtp.com (mail-c226.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.226])
	by punt5.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id
	r46NiI9q019980; Tue, 7 May 2013 00:44:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249])
	(authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r46NiCaX037285
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Tue, 7 May 2013 00:44:14 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 19:44:11 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Message-ID: <20130506234411.GA26567@petertodd.org>
References: <20130506163732.GB5193@petertodd.org>
	<CANEZrP2WqXZVRJp6ag=RC4mSkt+a6qTYYpvE=DW_0Rdr=_BBHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130506171943.GA22505@petertodd.org>
	<CAAS2fgQDa463Xb=D64LDenGn=mX+OXvD_bG=jXGYLnhFbgknsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130506175331.GB22505@petertodd.org>
	<CAAS2fgQWnZ_yPA7G4LNwk655CxTD9WZf0f-cb5xd3TFzpBB2_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130506183222.GB3797@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130506190857.GA23095@petertodd.org>
	<20130506195003.GB4583@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130506204307.GA23287@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130506204307.GA23287@petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: dc2fec68-b6a6-11e2-98a9-0025907ec6c5
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aQdMdgUUFVQNAgsB AmUbW1ReVFl7WGc7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto
	VEFWR1pVCwQmQxgH eEdtA3FydAJEcHs+ ZEVgV3IVCBd4IxMu
	REZJR2tXY3phaTUd TUlQJgpJcANIexZF bQUsUiAILwdSbGoL
	NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDMj8n TBccEC8+WkQJSz97
	NxUtKVMABw5RLUwp YxMaVEgGMhQfQgdf A1ovSCFePREZXTct
	AA8SW0kSHSYcKQAA 
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1020:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587
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: 1UZV54-0003YF-EZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discovery/addr packets (was: Service bits
 for pruned nodes)
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: Mon, 06 May 2013 23:44:31 -0000


--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:43:07PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> Now determining the value of D has a nice compact proof: B1, BP and M
> and B2. Taking the minimum of the difficulties of B1 and B2 (in case
> they cross a retarget boundry; don't want to create strange incentives)
> determine the expected return in Bitcoins from the block reward had the
> hasher solved valid blocks instead and you can determine exactly how
> much the proof-of-work was worth, kinda...

One last thought... suppose you want to make these proof-of-works
transferable on the blockchain, as is easily possible with
announce/commit fidelity bond sacrifices. The problem is of course
re-use - you don't want it to be possible to use the same proof-of-work
for a different asset.

So for D use the txid:vout pair of a txout that you can spend, then
spend it to some output to create the start of the smartcoin/contract
asset chain. The txout can only be spent once, so the PoW is inherently
non-reusable.

The final proof is a more compact than a fidelity bond proof, just the
PoW block and a single transaction and existence proof rather than two
or three. (announce, commit, and commit txin if sacrifice is via fees)


Unfortunately PoW schemes do mean you are actually taking away from the
overall security of the network, and if there was a lot of demand for
these things it will lead to the undesirable effect of making it easy to
rent hashing power. Botnet owners will be happy to have a task that
requires even less communication than Bitcoin itself. Finally the
varience inherent in them is annoying too. But it's an interesting idea.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000001358eaf811792b28798a04103b2e47aecf54268736514defd2f

--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlGIQEsACgkQpEFN739thoxP9ACeI0o3XscZLSBb3Lqi3ZO3KTER
aWAAninkW+m9GcmJQvy+uNenyZAN7xjh
=sQa8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP--