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 ) id 1YJXot-00014O-3I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 01:34:55 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.100 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.100; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk; Received: from outmail148100.authsmtp.co.uk ([62.13.148.100]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YJXor-00052z-OT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 01:34:55 +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 t161Yk4A073972; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 01:34:46 GMT Received: from muck (99-121-56-190.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.121.56.190]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t161YXBr029181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Feb 2015 01:34:42 GMT Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:34:31 -0800 From: Peter Todd To: Isidor Zeuner Message-ID: <20150206013431.GO32226@muck> References: <709AAA00-A40A-42EF-A17D-9B3E07FE902A@bitsofproof.com> <417518B4-1E4D-4467-BC87-95C9EAF0C599@bitsofproof.com> <20141211120916.E912EE22B92@quidecco.de> <20141215123942.GA28381@savin.petertodd.org> <20150204135443.2907FE2DCAD@quidecco.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DH4/xewco2zMcht6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150204135443.2907FE2DCAD@quidecco.de> X-Server-Quench: 54adcb7b-ada0-11e4-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgQUHlAWAgsB AmMbW1VeU1l7XWY7 YgNPbAdcfE9IQQRj UFdMSlVNFUssABoA b3ZsEBlwfgROeTBx Z05mWj5eWBUuJhR6 EFMFQTwGeGZhPWQC AkNRcR5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhg1 TUcAFTEtNjJeLmFZ Tx8AKVUKREsNAgt0 Yh0YEjgjVUgEQSQ1 IFQvYkUdEEtZOUU7 MF1pRlMEM1cKEApZ ESMFByERLUQbQUss C0tCVFQTFiEVSidV AxtA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 99.121.56.190/587 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: 1YJXor-00052z-OT Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of burn on parent chain X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 01:34:55 -0000 --DH4/xewco2zMcht6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote: > Hi there, >=20 > comments in-line: >=20 > >> I later wrote up the idea in the context of adding Zerocoin to > >> Bitcoin: > >> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/= msg02472.html > >> >=20 > For the sake of maximum clarity with respect to modelling the value of > a Bitcoin, I don't think that approaches which change the number > of coins that can possibly be circulated should be encouraged. >=20 > So, I like the idea of having the "sacrificed" coins appearing in the > mining fees in a future block. But what is meant with OP_DEPTH in this > context? From what I read, this operation just manipulates the stack > size when evaluating the script, so I don't see how it would > affect miner incentives. Oh, where I was saying OP_DEPTH, I was referring to a *hypothetical* opcode; I'd forgotten when I wrote that post that OP_DEPTH is an real opcode. These days I'd suggest you use the (upcoming on BTC/live on Viacoin) OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode instead. Pretty simple really: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000165ecbd638ec09226f84c34d3d775d34ca5df4abfa8cb57c --DH4/xewco2zMcht6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJU1BojXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxNjVlY2JkNjM4ZWMwOTIyNmY4NGMzNGQzZDc3NWQzNGNh NWRmNGFiZmE4Y2I1N2MvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfs+/wf+Ii5G7Iijd2RllEsdqEYtOHSI cGNH12bgn+Ch1cE1Rf3WlyEcfUbM95DkS8FgMRVp+9wO6RFqGALrhr5Vajf/G5hP KIhXCc1MWkiy1RRbpc34n0B0Jeoh7ywpbpPtoy6pl9FU2hq7CiAMENqygHAJJioe +b4q++wH38hVxJ2IipkG9IKgMvtfWIxIXx/kr9YwQo8xt8KMx1LY5suAToCdX5TS zJHyQBFhw/PRZVbCzmqwy+N9tllT7mKHfoKZGpn981JLBTyRWNy1Rrstgc+iDJ5k pFfxHFHPXwDlIPwNpKno3PllyEDNwaKLXmxhG7m1XBqIBavkg6tV2UldNnJpQg== =mujj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DH4/xewco2zMcht6--