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
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
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
|
