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
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
|
Return-Path: <matthew.beton@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A25ECB15
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com
[209.85.218.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8916644E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j144so58676445oib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=7Deh8cxwn04xukt5xPGI6RJeCZVgfsoe6bhifko06rQ=;
b=XYx0dX/+NgLbly0bJBB9d00I/eXJspiLnFfqCLzpMIVkQ5r8jkBt35Tc4EExtUqrRY
moqPKlZCAi0JnBGzcIW+lCRgzaxSUXxJPWy7getiHXz3LBL/b5LpzuX8+tZuMBp87VR3
0AwkvxKv6XpLnb/7Il9PNRdOW4AZ6ZTIOBFrAW/Y4FzVuF6Cz4wF0q+OL62arjn7j3TU
LWyKmWNUUR6lYwTrO49MNHP9KYPepJpkeyUgqFMhHi6K2NJl7B/DTTfMXZUdjcdJhCNe
8JTiUwBYDAIroT/Hl7u86+4vvVrfgdKXH4K6zJwzguqj/fYXvH5e11WzbGWqNrWkDqQ6
sIjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=7Deh8cxwn04xukt5xPGI6RJeCZVgfsoe6bhifko06rQ=;
b=FlDhRqLdmt0jWaVz+A0IsGkk+3kRxsSVmz2J9xiPfJ+vj2gclLZy+1dwAR2gqclHXO
ny+2CAJfJhgHzrO5QPmioOupy4BDuyEUBKZsnLNM0sGt9o1kPBrAZeEgN/eIKmfjajHZ
dxdk//cfQ2F9F3A81NhbKwWHsdqTm8SonB6zsHfNfwvI/AvDrkMB/oIZ2kYmbwBGwa6B
DgoVWLRkQQJN9XtEIwcwutzVF/ayKu1xQcvi5u/oU95EBg8f9BsePMfbBO819wsWoe2x
0y6x6irntWjmL7NhptroPIlEc/33SJCnLQzZU7x8ugF++Nj3RVe+EvFmMVfyw3MLOsJz
pukA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5i+DhdQV1iJxi0YDWlcnBCdFZBjRksXwyJnJarPkwmrMA+isOQ5
0LsJ/K0BWYbhFtHr5LGnAoMTu3cJaA==
X-Received: by 10.202.53.195 with SMTP id c186mr1017131oia.76.1503410700496;
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALKSEdq0CUKPY2u+WfAaWtg5nXYKCJzRnDbU2iMs8PQQSpPDGA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL5BAw2GoQb3-R1Ybe581MbOQvx8wvT0bLoEQ29caNVJTFShmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL5BAw2GoQb3-R1Ybe581MbOQvx8wvT0bLoEQ29caNVJTFShmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Beton <matthew.beton@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:04:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CALKSEdrtCKvPUWTmsBnWgj3gHjktRajDU0NGonQ-SS8-854ONA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:44 +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 14:05:01 -0000
--001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number of bitcoins tied
up in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppose this isn't so
much of a problem if it's well known that the bitcoins are all tied up. It
would be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins people have lost access
to, and bitcoins that people have just left in the same wallet for a long
time.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 3:45 pm Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
--001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number=
of bitcoins tied up in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppos=
e this isn't so much of a problem if it's well known that the bitco=
ins are all tied up. It would be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins=
people have lost access to, and bitcoins that people have just left in the=
same wallet for a long time.</div><span>
</span><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, 22 Aug 2017,=
3:45 pm Chris Riley <<a href=3D"mailto:criley@gmail.com" target=3D"_bla=
nk">criley@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><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 dat=
e because they are "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is=
=C2=A0antithetical to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longe=
r 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 contr=
ol and solely based on some rationalization by a third party.=C2=A0 Once th=
e rule is established that there are valid reasons why someone should not h=
ave control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons will then be determin=
ed 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 ye=
ars expecting his coins to be there only to find out that his coins were de=
emed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in the current double=
speak - e.g. stolen or confiscated).=C2=A0 Or perhaps he locked some for hi=
s children and they are found to be "stale" before they are avail=
able.=C2=A0 He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough&qu=
ot; stored in a paper wallet.=C2=A0 Perhaps any remaining coins are no long=
er "safe enough."<br><div><br></div><div>Again, this seems (a) mo=
re 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 som=
eone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to bitcoin.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra=
"><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.linuxfoundation.or=
g</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote"><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 y=
ears to develop this solution), it stays nice and neat with the halving int=
erval. We can look at this like so:</span><br><br><span>B - the current blo=
ck number</span><br><span>P - how many blocks behind current the coin burni=
ng 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 stale coins. Thes=
e coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This keeps t=
he mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to stop minin=
g due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving their money=
around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.</span>
<br></blockquote></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">____________________________________=
___________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div>
--001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4--
|
