Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B992F98C for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:33:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com (mail-oi0-f65.google.com [209.85.218.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95357143 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f65.google.com with SMTP id j144so7092695oib.5 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:33:52 -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=syjXaoSQQF68/uHd44DM8Lx3SB6KoptOnkiD80H+Iik=; b=vFmDl9XzooMImKWZjeQh6ijoGAhrTHT0wPw9ItEFMo8OGSSWqhvZSF/iAQ3EX5+qut IDRRUq0imAMd8W6RItOF61X7Z+wrNaHFLAADA3Wz5tbQmsZdxNvW+q160KjMkvdS8z11 5YKl5xKD9nHQzJdHDwFynS+n+AjKjFInueqcwn2bGtbPKAzRNzyys9xdGDh4aF65KXZk QYaQ28vtgxboSB51rGuuEpkYprVVBkJk39ZJK+DzUFLFGb4V7WY/fzDseN0edAJrrhW+ rSSso/Jl+7fpjyT+9logdBs2GX1pLqKEw45X3XE7chKvp1Go66hK7C/9km/qAL/sOVY8 IleQ== 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=syjXaoSQQF68/uHd44DM8Lx3SB6KoptOnkiD80H+Iik=; b=IqQ5XvRoqGhxE0n4f8oNkAUES6mdIdouBt8TKCdIwQb5TrqHP++5b0WGcXs/dDoqPT kAJUgvw0KQYIDrwQzY/yIad+NNA1ZoOqgqBec42nwybIDQXJa46HL/ICOCgn27PHkDu6 J2xN0Rqp2FswBEVc2fj/qMZGXPMfXNDAV1zrYEh9QvhqJPqBjzU1YPiwmSAlwSLc8/xm qayI9RCx8QeysuDA2m1DETzVeKEL2kfhH432NmzvyxkIbWKq3pm6pVi+uzO39Igaxy+n PFPm0jHdkXfrzaWwX4lTmLIOVKtUHhz9OSayTQEBqCfITnW/KElyZwqdJ0ztinQBk2Dq tOGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5iYt+zrV3ZUhNYTv8RO3of1BSuEvMTqF44kJOFyWQm3EEFc2j6j gtF5hMlmHrHxkodM8bQIILtZSMxgiQ== X-Received: by 10.202.73.69 with SMTP id w66mr1707721oia.75.1503423231668; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:33:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4c39bee6-f419-2e36-62a8-d38171b15558@aei.ca> In-Reply-To: <4c39bee6-f419-2e36-62a8-d38171b15558@aei.ca> From: Matthew Beton Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:33:41 +0000 Message-ID: To: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest , Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Chris Riley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dc100abb8e805575affcc" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:58:04 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:33:52 -0000 --001a113dc100abb8e805575affcc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Very true, if Moore's law is still functional in 200 years, computers will be 2^100 times faster (possibly more if quantum computing becomes commonplace), and so old wallets may be easily cracked. We will need a way to force people to use newer, higher security wallets, and turning coins to mining rewards is better solution than them just being hacked. On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 7:24 pm Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote: > In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years > cryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they did > not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he would find > that advance in computer technology made it trivial for anyone to steal his > coins using the long-obsolete secp256k1 ec curve (which was done long > before, as soon as it became profitable to crack down the huge stash of > coins stale in the early blocks) > > I just don't get that argument that you can't be "your own bank". The only > requirement coming from this would be to move your coins about once every > 10 years or so, which you should be able to do if you have your private > keys (you should!). You say it may be something to consider when computer > breakthroughs makes old outputs vulnerable, but I say it's not "if" but > "when" it happens, and by telling firsthand people that their coins > requires moving every once in a long while you ensure they won't do stupid > things or come back 50 years from now and complain their addresses have > been scavenged. > > -- > Thomas > > > On 22/08/17 10:29 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat > to the security of Bitcoin. > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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. >>> >> > --001a113dc100abb8e805575affcc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Very true, if Moore's law is still functional in 200 yea= rs, computers will be 2^100 times faster (possibly more if quantum computin= g becomes commonplace), and so old wallets may be easily cracked.

We will need a way to force people to use newer, higher secu= rity wallets, and turning coins to mining rewards is better solution than t= hem just being hacked.


On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 7:24 p= m Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei.c= a> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years cryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they did not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he would find that advance in computer technology made it trivial for anyone to steal his coins using the long-obsolete secp256k1 ec curve (which was done long before, as soon as it became profitable to crack down the huge stash of coins stale in the early blocks)

I just don't get that argument that you can't be "your own= bank". The only requirement coming from this would be to move your coins about once every 10 years or so, which you should be able to do if you have your private keys (you should!). You say it may be something to consider when computer breakthroughs makes old outputs vulnerable, but I say it's not "if" but "when" = it happens, and by telling firsthand people that their coins requires moving every once in a long while you ensure they won't do stupid things or come back 50 years from now and complain their addresses have been scavenged.

--
Thomas


On 22/08/17 10:29 A= M, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat to the security of Bitcoin.=C2=A0=C2=A0

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote:
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 date because they are "stale"= ; or someone is "hoarding" is=C2=A0antithetical to one o= f 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.=C2=A0 Once the rule is established that there ar= e 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 we= re "reclaimed" (in the current doublespeak - e.g. st= olen or confiscated).=C2=A0 Or perhaps he locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before = they are available.=C2=A0 He said in March 2013, "I think t= hey're safe enough" stored in a paper wallet.=C2=A0 Perhaps a= ny 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 chang= e to bitcoin.




On Tue, Aug 22, 20= 17 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-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.

--001a113dc100abb8e805575affcc--