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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0342F92
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:29:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B6D8D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:29:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2719338AB71F;
Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:28:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::ZRwUX2vBDV/GZjMJ:XoVG
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com::o6SdqoG37P2Mr6i3:aeIaP
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:pete@petertodd.org::CXHZPa9OtwUtJVph:aUjU8
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:28:51 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.21-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAKzdR-rsy1m-H4fYFuCim5+YJi_C2kgjxymM8A7_nEuqsZoO+g@mail.gmail.com>
<20161002171137.GA18452@fedora-21-dvm>
<CAAy62_+cqR0-DBbKhePo+VqTJc099zXJR0EurLyb1XURUCT36g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAy62_+cqR0-DBbKhePo+VqTJc099zXJR0EurLyb1XURUCT36g@mail.gmail.com>
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="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201610022128.52401.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC
autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS
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: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 21:29:23 -0000
On Sunday, October 02, 2016 5:18:08 PM Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or
> pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin
> project? If not, you're wildly off topic.
I think that's the concern: we don't - and *can't* - know. Pending patents are
not publicly visible, as far as I am aware, and the BIP process does not
(presently) require any patent disclosure.
Of course, it is entirely possible to voluntarily provide a disclosure of
patents in the BIP (and ideally a free license to such patents, at least those
for the BIP). This is an alternative possibility to resolve patent concerns if
Rootstock is not prepared to adopt a defensive patent strategy in general
(yet?).
On Sunday, October 02, 2016 6:17:12 PM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If I understand this BIP correctly, the values pushed onto the stack by the
> OP_COUNT_ACKS operation depends on the ack and nack counts relative to the
> block that this happens to be included in.
>
> This isn't going to be acceptable. The validity of a transaction should
> always be monotone in the sense that if a transaction was acceptable in a
> given block, it must always be acceptable in any subsequent block, with the
> only exception being if one of the transaction's inputs get double spent.
I don't know if it's possible to implement decentralised sidechains without
"breaking" this rule. But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it
would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore it
may be acceptable in relation to this argument.
Luke
|
