From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:28:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201610022128.52401.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAy62_+cqR0-DBbKhePo+VqTJc099zXJR0EurLyb1XURUCT36g@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-02 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-02 15:49 Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 16:17 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 17:00 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 17:11 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 17:18 ` Andrew Johnson
2016-10-02 17:24 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 21:28 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2016-10-02 21:46 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-10-02 22:36 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
[not found] ` <CAMZUoKnE9VNnUHrDTtZOroBp=SC_eY1fEAsEOz=4b1=5v_wHaA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-10-02 23:00 ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Russell O'Connor
[not found] ` <CAKzdR-oxpDdXEcPTYtj6os58cVMgwoqyXvu5UMMQzD3QbvMtxA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-10-02 23:26 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Russell O'Connor
2016-10-02 21:54 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-10-02 17:26 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-02 17:34 ` Peter Todd
2016-10-02 18:17 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-10-24 17:37 ` Johnson Lau
2016-10-25 16:38 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-10-25 17:45 ` Johnson Lau
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=201610022128.52401.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=andrew.johnson83@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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