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
87
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Y5ius-0005U4-PO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:35:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
designates 85.234.147.28 as permitted sender)
client-ip=85.234.147.28; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
helo=zinan.dashjr.org;
Received: from 85-234-147-28.static.as29550.net ([85.234.147.28]
helo=zinan.dashjr.org)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Y5iuo-00022j-Ef for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:35:58 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CE521083730;
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:35:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:141229:sergiolerner@certimix.com::gKjzZLwdaQaHy5T8:aD7Gq
X-Hashcash: 1:25:141229:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::n2crpZ4XVPBsoal9:jc9d
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:35:04 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.27-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.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-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201412292235.05695.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address
-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: 1Y5iuo-00022j-Ef
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds
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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:35:59 -0000
On Monday, December 29, 2014 7:21:02 PM Sergio Lerner wrote:
> I propose to allow miners to voluntarily lock funds by letting miners
> add additional inputs to the coinbase transaction. Currently the
> coinbase transaction does not allow any real input to be added (only a
> pseudo-input).
This is something I've wanted since 2011, but hasn't been a priority.
> Because sometime in the future (maybe 5-10 years) we may have to deal
> with problems of securing the blockchain, as the subsidy is lowered. We
> don't want the number of confirmation blocks to be increased in
> compensation because Bitcoin won't be able to compete with other payment
> networks.
> Then by having this hardfork now, we will be able to soft-fork later to
> any rule we may came come up with involving deposit bonds,
> proof-of-stake, and the penalization of double-mining (mining two blocks
> at the same height) to prevent short-range attacks.
I'm not sure this increases the priority of it.
If someone feels it's worth the time, I'd suggest coding up a branch that
hardforks it in at some far-off block height. Even if it doesn't get merged
right away, at least the code will be available for testing and ready to go
when/if that time comes.
Luke
|
