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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11AD1F2E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 May 2019 19:03:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com
[209.85.210.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9876B83A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 May 2019 19:03:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id g18so6409215otj.11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 May 2019 12:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=eSsAi/5fAL0C3o7CArCJx0Gz6tAZ4A3H+s35hLA40K0=;
b=FoEH5lB8LMx/PTtmv2iufbLHMaJydOlmcUTqvXtJhDp6abNib7BeHSrJo58jQ3siar
Hb55/8flT3To2lciwKWncJJ8CRnd9xmpyCpfx4wgXi9NM9cTLOSex7xARTShyyonwIIW
tpDtmuaTvwif7fAbFiXu0cMedbW89OloVCKkZcxBmzgc6HUksdbsWxdyon4J70HndfD9
A+wKkDiQZGyrjKjOiqwYcn9MV6LskQko9n2XgdpM/j+YHXORQLnA55G3rNgNLZYhtGGg
HTJvnmEimEtDFpreDSYFM9C4RpQP7ucWCVsZokKRnBYWX8THQ/ANUFfi7/+9D5+QxXQx
v6Qw==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=eSsAi/5fAL0C3o7CArCJx0Gz6tAZ4A3H+s35hLA40K0=;
b=hSb1GVzh7gjlWN43L3ZLxSOFfC3qOQfN1x7P4ULmaSangelE69XQa/WaL5WruyNAcj
gCWC7nqQtM4uVeSjnQn0lla4rg5ZfvQ4uGwi3988eTYiZidcZJ//NXRsURXHp5Zqcgyp
uDXqqcpWk3QMeNMZSPTGggGgzFHT24o3pYkTkHAaVPV1dy53C/MYVKfho8lHBIri8kr2
t6fmm2bY4BZsjSP6XhigqLtDN5LclRlIQGATkhy/mi2bKckPwtTqX64PiXrS5+OuABTQ
SvpUTKY1MvPr5xKTn8JPKpzRwVf/mIvhRlDaVUA70Y/if0BA8qFFhQEx9XYjYTZ1+pWt
XGmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgiGwcrXTfT3s55X1mJnyXirmtWFdV+XHMKyL9viWR7NWgCIGV
dL5hzgklJnKR2uEYThLuFpPiUm44R6aAb46HMFHffg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwntLttZaDDFKr4vlTALj2PoBPnZDa0yMHJZi6AvL79c7/zhxAoz8X3p7kmj70+zbNZ3GR+WrReHH1FZ3GpN8I=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2145:: with SMTP id
r5mr5356042otd.226.1558638200872;
Thu, 23 May 2019 12:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhgHyR5qdd09ikvA_vgepj4o+Aqb0JA_T6FuqX56ZNe1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
<42F53D61-BAAE-464F-BB0D-4D0CDC554D9A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <42F53D61-BAAE-464F-BB0D-4D0CDC554D9A@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 21:03:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoFS=dNbqzEo+RcWb32Kx4QM7YHLxYLOG54a=RGR8rQcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 May 2019 19:06:44 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_DIFFICULTY to enable difficulty hedges (bets)
without an oracle and 3rd party.
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 19:03:22 -0000
The complains I could imagine about this, (apart from being a very
specific use case) are the same complains I heard about op_expiry.
Namely, that in a reorg, the same tx, having been valid in a given
block could potentially become invalid in some other block mining it.
I guess in this case the situation is less likely in this case than
with op_expiry, but it is still possible.
Another complain I could imagine is this kind of forces the
implementation to break some existing encapsulations, but I guess
those are just implementation details not that relevant here.
I personally don't have strong feelings towards this proposal one way
or the other, I'm just imagining what other people may complain about.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Difficulty change has profound impact on miner=E2=80=99s production there=
by introduce the biggest risk while considering an investment.
> Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional=
trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures.
>
> I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin.
>
> A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated =
in block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block =
in the future.
> A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty f=
or the block the transaction is included into.
> The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike whic=
h key can spend it.
> The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who ent=
ered the bet.
> The winner would broadcast.
>
> Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk=
and would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet.
>
> I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve signifi=
cant economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with Bitcoin=
=E2=80=99s aim not to introduce 3rd party to do so.
>
> Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute?
>
> Tamas Blummer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
