From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco•de>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of burn on parent chain
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:34:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150206013431.GO32226@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150204135443.2907FE2DCAD@quidecco.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1280 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> comments in-line:
>
> >> I later wrote up the idea in the context of adding Zerocoin to
> >> Bitcoin:
> >>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02472.html
> >>
>
> For the sake of maximum clarity with respect to modelling the value of
> a Bitcoin, I don't think that approaches which change the number
> of coins that can possibly be circulated should be encouraged.
>
> So, I like the idea of having the "sacrificed" coins appearing in the
> mining fees in a future block. But what is meant with OP_DEPTH in this
> context? From what I read, this operation just manipulates the stack
> size when evaluating the script, so I don't see how it would
> affect miner incentives.
Oh, where I was saying OP_DEPTH, I was referring to a *hypothetical*
opcode; I'd forgotten when I wrote that post that OP_DEPTH is an real
opcode.
These days I'd suggest you use the (upcoming on BTC/live on Viacoin)
OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode instead. Pretty simple really:
<current blockheight + 1 year worth of blocks> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000165ecbd638ec09226f84c34d3d775d34ca5df4abfa8cb57c
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-06 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-09 21:14 [Bitcoin-development] ACK NACK utACK "Concept ACK" Sergio Lerner
2014-12-09 21:30 ` Matt Corallo
2014-12-10 6:47 ` Wladimir
2014-12-10 7:35 ` [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of burn on parent chain Tamas Blummer
2014-12-10 8:30 ` patrick
2014-12-16 9:55 ` Alex Mizrahi
2014-12-16 12:36 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-15 14:55 ` Isidor Zeuner
2014-12-16 8:28 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-12-16 12:30 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-12-18 16:23 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-12-10 8:21 ` [Bitcoin-development] ACK NACK utACK "Concept ACK" Wladimir
2014-12-10 15:45 ` Austin Walne
2014-12-17 8:44 ` Wladimir
2014-12-10 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-12-16 23:40 ` Btc Drak
2014-12-11 12:09 ` [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of burn on parent chain Isidor Zeuner
2014-12-11 14:56 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-12-15 10:21 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-12-15 12:39 ` Peter Todd
2014-12-15 13:06 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-04 13:54 ` Isidor Zeuner
2015-02-06 1:34 ` Peter Todd [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150206013431.GO32226@muck \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=cryptocurrencies@quidecco$(echo .)de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox