Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1XZUgL-0003ry-4M
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 02 Oct 2014 00:55:45 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
	designates 192.3.11.21 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=192.3.11.21; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
	helo=zinan.dashjr.org; 
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1XZUgK-00024d-Bt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 02 Oct 2014 00:55:45 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
	[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
	(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
	by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCF7B1083681;
	Thu,  2 Oct 2014 00:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 00:55:36 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.5-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
	<201410011823.56441.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CE356B97-E5AC-4A04-B67C-A542D070F1C5@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CE356B97-E5AC-4A04-B67C-A542D070F1C5@petertodd.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201410020055.37347.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--)
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
	-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1XZUgK-00024d-Bt
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BBIP_draft=5D_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERI?=
 =?utf-8?q?FY_-_Prevent=09a_txout_from_being_spent_until_an_expiration_tim?=
 =?utf-8?q?e?=
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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 00:55:45 -0000

On Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:05:15 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On 1 October 2014 11:23:55 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> >Thoughts on some way to have the stack item be incremented by the
> >height at
> >which the scriptPubKey was in a block?
> 
> Better to create a GET-TXIN-BLOCK-(TIME/HEIGHT)-EQUALVERIFY operator.
> scriptPubKey would be:
>     GET-TXIN-BLOCKHEIGHT-EQUALVERIFY
> (fails unless top stack item is equal to the txin block height)
>     <delta height> ADD
> (top stack item is now txin height + delta height)
>     CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY

This sounds do-able, although it doesn't address using timestamps.

> > A limitation of encoding the target
> >height/time directly, is that miners may choose not to mine the first
> >transaction until they can also take the "burn to fee". So, one may
> >prefer to
> >say "cannot be spent until 100 blocks after the first transaction is
> >mined",
> >in effect reproducing the generation maturity rule.
> 
> You'd want these sacrifices to unlock years into the future to thoroughly
> exceed any reasonable business cycle; that's so far into the future that
> miners are almost certain to just mine them and collect the fees.

For many use cases, short maturity periods are just as appropriate IMO.

Luke