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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Y5omj-0001hw-Qa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:51:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y5omi-0002VR-Os
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:51:57 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id vy18so11388894iec.37
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.30.204 with SMTP id e195mr52230737ioe.28.1419915111463;
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.16.30 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
References: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:51:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSvq_Tnon1C+xED06VYPizj+XTiDu0xm0MvCg_9-ejcjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Y5omi-0002VR-Os
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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:51:57 -0000
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner@certimix.com> 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.
If the motivation is purely enabling different rules in a soft-fork
than I think nothing needs to be done.
Instead of providing inputs to a coinbase: you provide an unusual
anyone can spend transaction in the block which pays to fees; and
simultaneously add a soft-forking rule that makes that anyone can
spend rule no longer anyone can spend.
To make that more concrete. E.g. You make your anyone can spend
output "PUSH<hash of coinbase output script_pubkeys> OP_NOP3". Now
this anyone can pay transaction is really just a coinbase input.
The construction is reasonably efficient, and also more flexible-- in
that it could control the data under the hash in more flexible ways
than available in the existing sighash flags.
As an aside, I'm not sure that I agree with the claim that making
coinbases have inputs is a simple modification... as we use one of the
inputs already as the special coinbase field and at least that must be
special cased.
|
