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
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
|
Return-Path: <criley@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8AF970
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com (mail-io0-f196.google.com
[209.85.223.196])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7A6458
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f196.google.com with SMTP id m40so2204777ioi.4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=TMgRkYqvdla+iqkF1rXxYzsw3FRta79m+ti1G82IBpY=;
b=oe1QW6qzk1Zm2EFmmNlq3jgOK+GWhh7Qzz/Bw+wcXeV40SV3kaQm98BOwsgz5vtEMD
NE2aWg6ugDPNU+IAK+pw5XQxiq22Ikeysfk7EV2pKUneoBdKL0fv567UAKg4OypYjVwE
i0Xn47HzTeJlIoGyr1tukD9Wgf2nfDqnFM9LFow1Afghx3V1FYm0p1AlthydqldQe7gV
+RIfcb1wZZPgcsJOtaDIYO4JuT24Hpcijs28cEp4N7/6fW3GuvlpUdwAsEVOpzOxIXOw
i5328jMey489E0kVlNcx7wfSEpSBBUvsQPp7kzdkdvQtvO93JBiXirqVkBIsuiU9azcs
uEtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=TMgRkYqvdla+iqkF1rXxYzsw3FRta79m+ti1G82IBpY=;
b=hqc7ByQFChUp5trQro4gS5kmXIFqeVDq3Qnm3aS53f9+wn7l/3cymawbX+JGtmrMlR
D8eLaXwKnQ4U8gyY+LNXcI/Zly0iQ6Zcw3541prnWKbl7FA+emEX+gSC/YGBc/IjdQF1
LAfnYW7zHAadi9YLXhE/sYiAk381+lqXyIdejAUony4QZ3fJB2StpE/JlXqzpSGlRiCx
C7DZDVMY2SuIFjMq+S6cLjDcd/7P2eFFJMvogCZEmmd7s7q1Kj7ngCGm+A1rq9Ty4cIE
lQdALqOevDUuWozY9sbRqVVdXgySzNeWhSQUzSPJMl5BNdqW3PpVnZ+zC7JwgTHwdTfg
5K3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hXRi+1GSGtYwFYQeiUIdWwgdu08M/iTFa5TrwfWrLspKp1GxMF
qZyzqc1oBogzmwgtSAgjp1BV3n01kot5nDQ=
X-Received: by 10.107.7.218 with SMTP id g87mr545105ioi.266.1503409553018;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.102.194 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALKSEdq0CUKPY2u+WfAaWtg5nXYKCJzRnDbU2iMs8PQQSpPDGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALKSEdq0CUKPY2u+WfAaWtg5nXYKCJzRnDbU2iMs8PQQSpPDGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:45:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL5BAw2GoQb3-R1Ybe581MbOQvx8wvT0bLoEQ29caNVJTFShmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Beton <matthew.beton@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fc0785c1491055757d0bf"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:28 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:45:53 -0000
--001a113fc0785c1491055757d0bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we
can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are
"stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of
bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own
bank") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason
that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a
third party. Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why
someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons
will then be determined to be valid?
I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if
you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there
only to find out that his coins were deemed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in
the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated). Or perhaps he
locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before they
are available. He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough" stored
in a paper wallet. Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer "safe enough."
Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in
bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times
since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing
someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to
bitcoin.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or
> 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and
> neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so:
>
> B - the current block number
> P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000,
> 840000, or otherwise.)
>
> Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale
> coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This
> keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to
> stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving
> their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--001a113fc0785c1491055757d0bf
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion.=C2=
=A0 The idea that we can change the rules and steal coins at a later date b=
ecause they are "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is=C2=
=A0antithetical to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longer c=
ontrol your own money ("be your own bank") because someone can at=
a later date take your coins for some reason that is outside your control =
and solely based on some rationalization by a third party.=C2=A0 Once the r=
ule is established that there are valid reasons why someone should not have=
control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons will then be determined =
to be valid?<div><br></div><div>I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he =
was cryo-preserved at Alcor if you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years=
expecting his coins to be there only to find out that his coins were deeme=
d "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in the current doublespe=
ak - e.g. stolen or confiscated).=C2=A0 Or perhaps he locked some for his c=
hildren and they are found to be "stale" before they are availabl=
e.=C2=A0 He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough"=
stored in a paper wallet.=C2=A0 Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer =
"safe enough."<br><div><br></div><div>Again, this seems (a) more =
about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in bitcoin-discuss at best vs =
bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times since 2010 and still do =
not agree with the rational that embracing allowing someone to steal someon=
e else's coins for any reason is a useful change to bitcoin.</div><div>=
<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew=
Beton via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>Okay =
so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or 840000 =
(gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and neat with =
the halving interval. We can look at this like so:</span><br><br><span>B - =
the current block number</span><br><span>P - how many blocks behind current=
the coin burning block is. (630000, 840000, or otherwise.)</span><br><br><=
span>Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for st=
ale coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fee=
s. This keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likel=
y to stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep mov=
ing their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.=
</span>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a113fc0785c1491055757d0bf--
|
