Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6A4A7F for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:22:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 048D11AE for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id r136so5596253wmf.2 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:21:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=JSezf9F8Fh8Y8zrXk15MYV1JaA3AfKyhjAgsZvr3p7Y=; b=jon81yUqQQCEjB+rmBD/8M0v8ukM4Dp83i/sSOdqO1UAsxgiNcbWunKBPlwK61isuQ 2xc7geIvHd0/Ys5ZGp522UpHhxMD5R/l5k22uwH2yYLp1HD/7EpKFXRLcScrb8J2y3Fl zqkaJkwOk5zfmrNFvlwc2ms5jHgdTLLvQ31FlQV//zhsG9B+imVzyZfZSmA1kDPRE6OJ 9Ptj+U/GpM7iUvc4W2NeIoLD7qBHezuErqax/+GbfeB1IFgGFZf//PVgPbXqRy3p0gL7 Djz4TTKzsMKFyOlDfSOUEBQ1t4g1TdbMlq0JgPa6Pog+FmTcMtw4osCNhkliAvLY02zj Oouw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=JSezf9F8Fh8Y8zrXk15MYV1JaA3AfKyhjAgsZvr3p7Y=; b=GVUMNsiZ+rFKvULB2NfGmumT7madDMoOw7BItpEeShqapDryFcjMyUBT1CptBmyGHz Tsk7NusVIdGW7k0gMdpkx1AMk+viRV+x7ulZ8tmeT3F44pyTYP5AwaAAsOt0fpb5u5SI Oll9UIaaeT19rsgjKUt8Xh5HxzkHpQCnNBxgImj+QfpvPfVH2zoQrkE6wp3yWMcqcLGn 2wlC/dliUXqwBUvqp76ARuFfWW6goKs8sYaU7hxuk4PAH7jcAmLQRnYQc/iNYkEbyEI8 DwdFYEUtQqw7hUlTqctXdh7WTsIu1PXiemk6C9xxD8wiU48bX8tK5OSghhSQZQFWGh5P 8DDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjWtLiolDB5XftR6/lhK5jZQ+IXXCloqaF3FEmnguxc4aLdLZvK EK04e+UEwQlaLIUediKlKfg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDdCLTyZi8w84u0ArnWbeWpLKXhxmMU5XWGGNFetvIHnwsQL+2xqyyAK8QKXkXa+zqHAtwq1Q== X-Received: by 10.80.149.236 with SMTP id x41mr16511622eda.4.1506417717626; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (ANice-654-1-109-22.w86-203.abo.wanadoo.fr. [86.203.44.22]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm5642310ede.38.2017.09.26.02.21.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:21:56 -0700 (PDT) To: Patrick Sharp , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , ZmnSCPxj References: <9Rdn-Mm90LWD4Tk_F0x04feUwKQp3nL8yTou9435kqjPCwjXWzNXsYTbWDA8YvO4p6_jBu1sFXEAa1ybvtcIrOqbv7qkghwENdHch6n_EEM=@protonmail.com> From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: <883ac262-1de8-ac16-f57d-90c683da9e7d@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:43:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1BD8B99E9399710B50A86F2D" Content-Language: fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: trimming and demurrage X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:22:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1BD8B99E9399710B50A86F2D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maybe I missed or did not receive some messages, where was your centralization concern addressed in the discussion? Le 26/09/2017 à 03:33, Patrick Sharp via bitcoin-dev a écrit : > Thank you for your responses. I have been enlightened. For the time > being the combination of the UTXO's and pruning will accomplish what I > desire. I suspect that there will come a time when the UTXO database > becomes too large, but I guess that is a problem for another day. If > that day ever comes 10 years was just an example, like you said there > are reasons to preserve value beyond that point, perhaps a human > lifetime or two would be a better choice. > > Side question: wouldn't it be a good idea to store the hash of the > current or previous UTXO's in the block header so that pruned nodes > can verify their UTXO's are accurate without having to check the full > chain? and/or maybe include a snap shot of the UTXO's every x blocks? > > You guys are totally awesome!!! > > I here by withdraw my proposal for the time being. > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM, ZmnSCPxj > wrote: > > Good morning Patrick, > > Demurrage is simply impossible. > > In Bitcoin we already have implemented OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. > > This opcode requires that a certain block height or date has > passed before the output can be spent. > > It can be used to make an "in trust for" address, where you > disallow spending of that address.  For example, you may have a > child to whom you wish to dedicate some inheritance to, and ensure > that the child will not spend it recklessly until they achieve > some age (when hopefully they would be more mature), regardless of > what happens to you. > > If I made a P2SH address with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY that allows > spending 18 years from birth of my child, and then suddenly > Bitcoin Core announces demurrage, I would be very angry. > > OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY cannot be countermanded, and it would be > impossible to refresh the UTXO's as required by demurrage, without > requiring a hardfork that ignores OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. > > It would be better to put such additional features as demurrage in > a sidechain rather than on mainchain. > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: trimming and demurrage > Local Time: September 25, 2017 9:54 PM > UTC Time: September 25, 2017 9:54 PM > From: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > Hello Devs, > > I am Patrick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer > science. Forgive my ignorance. > > As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to > see if these ideas have already been formally proposed and now as > per bip-0002 post these ideas here. > > First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not original > nor new. > > Trimming and demurrage: > > I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby > contest. For the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the > economics that drive the costs of bitcoin. > > Without the ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum > length or size of the block chain, block chain is not only > unsustainable in the long run but becomes more and more > centralized as the block chain becomes more and more unwieldy. > > Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions > are now spent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive > and inhibited by unspent transactions. Old unspent transactions > add unnecessary and unfair burden. > Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur > cost while these transactions they do not continue to contribute > to any sort of payment for this cost. > One can assume that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the > power to move these bitcoins from one address to another (or at > least that the software that holds the keys to their coins can do > it for them) and it is not unfair to require them to do so at > least once every 5 to 10 years. > Given the incentive to move it or lose it and software that will > do it for them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is most > likey therefore lost. > moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is fair > as their transactions take up space, they need to contribute > most people who use their coins regularly will not even need to > worry about this as their coins are moved to a change address anyway. > one downside is that paper wallets would then have an expiration > date, however I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to be > recycled every 5 to 10 years is a terrible idea. > Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to > either 2^18 blocks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or > slightly less than 10 years. I propose that each time a block is > mined the the oldest block(s) (no more than two blocks) beyond > this limit is trimmed from the chain and that its unspent > transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the mined > block. > > This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This > keeps the costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users. > > Even though I believe this idea will have some friction, it is > applicable to the entire community. It will be hard for some users > to give up small benefits that they get at the great cost of > miners, however miners run the game and this fair proposal is in > in their best interest in two different ways. I would like your > thoughts and suggestions. I obviously think this is a freaking > awesome idea. I know it is quite controversial but it is the next > step in evolution that bitcoin needs to take to ensure immortality. > > I come to you to ask if this has any chance of acceptance. > > -Patrick > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org Peersm : http://www.peersm.com torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms --------------1BD8B99E9399710B50A86F2D Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe I missed or did not receive some messages, where was your centralization concern addressed in the discussion?


Le 26/09/2017 à 03:33, Patrick Sharp via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
Thank you for your responses. I have been enlightened. For the time being the combination of the UTXO's and pruning will accomplish what I desire. I suspect that there will come a time when the UTXO database becomes too large, but I guess that is a problem for another day. If that day ever comes 10 years was just an example, like you said there are reasons to preserve value beyond that point, perhaps a human lifetime or two would be a better choice.

Side question: wouldn't it be a good idea to store the hash of the current or previous UTXO's in the block header so that pruned nodes can verify their UTXO's are accurate without having to check the full chain? and/or maybe include a snap shot of the UTXO's every x blocks?

You guys are totally awesome!!!

I here by withdraw my proposal for the time being.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
Good morning Patrick,

Demurrage is simply impossible.

In Bitcoin we already have implemented OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

This opcode requires that a certain block height or date has passed before the output can be spent.

It can be used to make an "in trust for" address, where you disallow spending of that address.  For example, you may have a child to whom you wish to dedicate some inheritance to, and ensure that the child will not spend it recklessly until they achieve some age (when hopefully they would be more mature), regardless of what happens to you.

If I made a P2SH address with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY that allows spending 18 years from birth of my child, and then suddenly Bitcoin Core announces demurrage, I would be very angry.

OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY cannot be countermanded, and it would be impossible to refresh the UTXO's as required by demurrage, without requiring a hardfork that ignores OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.

It would be better to put such additional features as demurrage in a sidechain rather than on mainchain.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] idea post: trimming and demurrage
Local Time: September 25, 2017 9:54 PM
UTC Time: September 25, 2017 9:54 PM

Hello Devs,

I am Patrick Sharp. I just graduated with a BS is computer science. Forgive my ignorance.

As per bip-0002 I have scoured each bip available on the wiki to see if these ideas have already been formally proposed and now as per bip-0002 post these ideas here.

First and foremost I acknowledge that these ideas are not original nor new.

Trimming and demurrage:

I am fully aware that demurrage is a prohibited change. I hereby contest. For the record I am not a miner, I am just aware of the economics that drive the costs of bitcoin.

Without the ability to maintain some sort of limit on the maximum length or size of the block chain, block chain is not only unsustainable in the long run but becomes more and more centralized as the block chain becomes more and more unwieldy.

Trimming is not a foreign concept. Old block whose transactions are now spent hold no real value. Meaningful trimming is expensive and inhibited by unspent transactions. Old unspent transactions add unnecessary and unfair burden.
Old transactions take up real world space that continues incur cost while these transactions they do not continue to contribute to any sort of payment for this cost.
One can assume that anybody with access to their bitcoins has the power to move these bitcoins from one address to another (or at least that the software that holds the keys to their coins can do it for them) and it is not unfair to require them to do so at least once every 5 to 10 years.
Given the incentive to move it or lose it and software that will do it for them, we can assume that any bitcoin not moved is most likey therefore lost.
moving these coins will cost a small transaction fee which is fair as their transactions take up space, they need to contribute
most people who use their coins regularly will not even need to worry about this as their coins are moved to a change address anyway.
one downside is that paper wallets would then have an expiration date, however I do not think that a paper wallet that needs to be recycled every 5 to 10 years is a terrible idea.
Therefore I propose that the block chain length be limited to either 2^18 blocks (slightly less than 5 years) or 2^19 blocks, or slightly less than 10 years. I propose that each time a block is mined the the oldest block(s) (no more than two blocks) beyond this limit is trimmed from the chain and that its unspent transactions are allowed to be included in the reward of the mined block.

This keeps the block chain from tending towards infinity. This keeps the costs of the miners balanced with the costs of the users.

Even though I believe this idea will have some friction, it is applicable to the entire community. It will be hard for some users to give up small benefits that they get at the great cost of miners, however miners run the game and this fair proposal is in in their best interest in two different ways. I would like your thoughts and suggestions. I obviously think this is a freaking awesome idea. I know it is quite controversial but it is the next step in evolution that bitcoin needs to take to ensure immortality.

I come to you to ask if this has any chance of acceptance.

-Patrick



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


-- 
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--------------1BD8B99E9399710B50A86F2D--