From: Matthew Beton <matthew.beton@gmail•com>
To: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei•ca>,
Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Chris Riley <criley@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:33:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALKSEdrQoQkW7gQF5k=HFqzq6txfXwPpw8ui5um9bp+gZKNonw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c39bee6-f419-2e36-62a8-d38171b15558@aei.ca>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4251 bytes --]
Very true, if Moore's law is still functional in 200 years, computers will
be 2^100 times faster (possibly more if quantum computing becomes
commonplace), and so old wallets may be easily cracked.
We will need a way to force people to use newer, higher security wallets,
and turning coins to mining rewards is better solution than them just being
hacked.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 7:24 pm Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth@aei•ca> wrote:
> In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years
> cryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they did
> not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he would find
> that advance in computer technology made it trivial for anyone to steal his
> coins using the long-obsolete secp256k1 ec curve (which was done long
> before, as soon as it became profitable to crack down the huge stash of
> coins stale in the early blocks)
>
> I just don't get that argument that you can't be "your own bank". The only
> requirement coming from this would be to move your coins about once every
> 10 years or so, which you should be able to do if you have your private
> keys (you should!). You say it may be something to consider when computer
> breakthroughs makes old outputs vulnerable, but I say it's not "if" but
> "when" it happens, and by telling firsthand people that their coins
> requires moving every once in a long while you ensure they won't do stupid
> things or come back 50 years from now and complain their addresses have
> been scavenged.
>
> --
> Thomas
>
>
> On 22/08/17 10:29 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat
> to the security of Bitcoin.
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we
>> can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are
>> "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of
>> bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own
>> bank") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason
>> that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a
>> third party. Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why
>> someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons
>> will then be determined to be valid?
>>
>> I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if
>> you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there
>> only to find out that his coins were deemed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in
>> the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated). Or perhaps he
>> locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before they
>> are available. He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough" stored
>> in a paper wallet. Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer "safe enough."
>>
>> Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better
>> in bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many
>> times since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing
>> allowing someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful
>> change to bitcoin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or
>>> 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and
>>> neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so:
>>>
>>> B - the current block number
>>> P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000,
>>> 840000, or otherwise.)
>>>
>>> Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for
>>> stale coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees.
>>> This keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely
>>> to stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep
>>> moving their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7308 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-22 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-22 8:19 Matthew Beton
2017-08-22 13:45 ` Chris Riley
2017-08-22 14:04 ` Matthew Beton
2017-08-22 14:29 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-08-22 17:24 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
2017-08-22 17:33 ` Matthew Beton [this message]
2017-08-22 18:55 ` Chris Riley
2017-08-22 20:06 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-08-22 20:20 ` Mark Friedenbach
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-08-22 22:58 Rodney Morris
2017-08-22 23:29 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
2017-08-23 3:26 ` Mark Friedenbach
2017-08-22 22:17 Daniele Pinna
2017-08-22 23:27 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
2017-07-21 19:28 Major Kusanagi
2017-07-21 19:52 ` Jeremy
2017-07-21 19:54 ` Jameson Lopp
2017-07-22 6:43 ` Major Kusanagi
2017-07-21 19:59 ` Lucas Clemente Vella
2017-07-21 20:17 ` Moral Agent
2017-07-22 6:45 ` Major Kusanagi
2017-08-21 13:35 ` Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
2017-08-21 14:26 ` Moral Agent
2017-08-21 17:24 ` Erik Aronesty
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='CALKSEdrQoQkW7gQF5k=HFqzq6txfXwPpw8ui5um9bp+gZKNonw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=matthew.beton@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=criley@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=dermoth@aei$(echo .)ca \
--cc=erik@q32$(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