From: Stephen Morse <stephencalebmorse@gmail•com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:25:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABHVRKT6TFcdbqbdyX8D-zbUO4xFXuL3LLd1R7VLH4=JGEK9UQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRxysRqkSxqbF8Y9u2ptfVjX0PU6W85jD-RjSn9hUqNBA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3241 bytes --]
I agree with Gregory Maxwell, I don't think it would be as easy as just
changing IsCoinBase(), since there are places where the code assumes that
the coinbase's vin doesn't spend any prevouts and/or has size 1. For
example, here
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.9.3/src/main.cpp#L617-620> and
here <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.9.3/src/main.cpp#L785-L808>
.
I think the motivation behind the original suggestion is to have a way to
pay specific miners upon solving a block without risking possibly paying
other miners through pay-to-fee. What I'm not sure about, though, is why
not just send them a transaction once you see that the miner has solved a
block? Not a pay-to-fee transaction, a pay to pubkeyhash or whatever type
of transaction you need to make to send the miner some coins.
Although I don't completely understand the motivation for making such
transactions, maybe this would this work. Have outputs in the coinbase
transaction which have nValue == 0, then only apply the COINBASE_MATURITY
rule to spending coinbase outputs which have non-zero value. That way you
could make a transactions which is only valid after the miner specified
solves a block with the coinbase having the same TxID referenced by the new
transaction's input. It's still a hard fork, but might be easier than
allowing the coinbase to spend prevouts. I guess, at that point though, why
not just hard fork to allow the coinbase to spend prevouts...
Best,
Stephen
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sergio Lerner
> <sergiolerner@certimix•com> wrote:
> > Slight off-topic:
> > That looks like an abuse of the VM. Even P2SH is an abuse of the VM.
> > Gavin's OP_EVAL (hard-fork) should had been chosen. I'm taking about a
> > simple change that goes along the lines of Satoshi's original design.
> > Bitcoin was a beautiful design, and extra complexity is making it ugly.
> > We need Bitcoin to be simple to understand for new programmers so they
> > can keep the project going. It doesn't help the project that one needs
> > to be a guru to code for Bitcoin.
>
> Sergio there is no "abuse" there, OP_NOP3 in that case would be
> redefined to OP_COINBASE_FOO_CONSISTENCY.
>
> (I say FOO because it's not clear what rule you actually hope to apply
> there.)
>
> What you suggested has no purpose by itself: it would need an
> additional change which overlays functionality in order to actually do
> something. Such a change would likely be "ugly"-- it's easy to be
> elegant when you do nothing.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
> your
> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
> look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4184 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-31 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-29 19:21 Sergio Lerner
2014-12-29 21:10 ` Mike Hearn
2014-12-29 21:34 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-12-30 10:47 ` Jorge Timón
2014-12-30 13:16 ` Justus Ranvier
2014-12-29 22:36 ` Luke Dashjr
2014-12-29 22:35 ` Luke Dashjr
2014-12-30 4:51 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-12-30 16:25 ` Sergio Lerner
2014-12-30 18:28 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-12-31 18:25 ` Stephen Morse [this message]
2015-01-03 3:48 ` Peter Todd
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='CABHVRKT6TFcdbqbdyX8D-zbUO4xFXuL3LLd1R7VLH4=JGEK9UQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=stephencalebmorse@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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