From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0342F92 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:29:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B6D8D for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2719338AB71F; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:28:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::ZRwUX2vBDV/GZjMJ:XoVG X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com::o6SdqoG37P2Mr6i3:aeIaP X-Hashcash: 1:25:161002:pete@petertodd.org::CXHZPa9OtwUtJVph:aUjU8 From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Andrew Johnson Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:28:51 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.21-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) References: <20161002171137.GA18452@fedora-21-dvm> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201610022128.52401.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Drivechain proposal using OP_COUNT_ACKS X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 21:29:23 -0000 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