Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction signalling

From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin•net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Transaction signalling
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:01:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJi1HcMQMFXq_KeOgR+=tJCzZ4PJj-5QR8B_X-momD2Pg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUq487rDVQ9P=tr6EK+O0cT4ZBkKBhbBk1TBxdWbbQ78aZcwA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2297 bytes --]

Just to be clear, the tagging would occur on the addresses, and the
weighting would be by value, so it's a measure of economic significance.
Major exchanges will regularly tag massive amounts of Bitcoins with their
capabilities.

Just adding a nice bit-field and a tagging standard, and then charting it
might be enough to "think about how to use it later".   The only problem
would be that this would interfere with "other uses of op_return" ...
colored coins, etc.

Personally, I think that's OK, since the purpose is to tag economically
meaningful nodes to the Bitcoin ecosystem and colored coins, by definition,
only have value to "other ecosystems".

(Counterargument: Suppose in some future where this is used as an
alternative to BIP9 for a user-coordinated code release - especially in
situations where miners have rejected activation of a widely-regarded
proposal.  Suppose also, in that future, colored coin ICO's that use
op-return are regularly used to float the shares of major corporation.  It
might be irresponsible to exclude them from coordinating protocol changes.)

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin•net> wrote:

> Probably a bad idea for various reasons, but tagging (fee paying)
> transactions with info about the capabilities of the node that created
> it might be interesting? Might be useful to gauge economic support for
> certain upgrades, especially if excluding long transaction chains,
> etc. In the very least it would be a far better indicator than simply
> counting reachable nodes.
>
> On 17 April 2017 at 17:50, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > If users added a signal to OP_RETURN, might it be possible to tag all
> > validated input addresses with that signal.
> >
> > Then a node can activate a new feature after the percentage of tagged
> input
> > addresses reaches a certain level within a certain period of time?
> >
> > This could be used in addition to a flag day to trigger activation of a
> > feature with some reassurance of user uptake.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3252 bytes --]