From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Y5fsd-0004WL-Fr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:21:27 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from p3plsmtpa09-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.193.231]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Y5fsQ-0002Dm-OE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:21:27 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.23] ([190.17.239.92]) by p3plsmtpa09-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id ZXM41p00620JPBy01XM7Cn; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:21:08 -0700 Message-ID: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:21:02 -0300 From: Sergio Lerner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [173.201.193.231 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Headers-End: 1Y5fsQ-0002Dm-OE Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:21:27 -0000 I propose to allow miners to voluntarily lock funds by letting miners add additional inputs to the coinbase transaction. Currently the coinbase transaction does not allow any real input to be added (only a pseudo-input). This is a hard-fork, and we could include it the next time a hardfork is made. The modifications to the code are minimal (no more than 12 lines modified where IsCoinBase() is called), and they generally involve removing code, not adding. Why ? Because sometime in the future (maybe 5-10 years) we may have to deal with problems of securing the blockchain, as the subsidy is lowered. We don't want the number of confirmation blocks to be increased in compensation because Bitcoin won't be able to compete with other payment networks. Then by having this hardfork now, we will be able to soft-fork later to any rule we may came come up with involving deposit bonds, proof-of-stake, and the penalization of double-mining (mining two blocks at the same height) to prevent short-range attacks. Can it hurt? No. I doesn't not change the incentives or the security in any way, as adding additional inputs to the coinbase transaction would be voluntary until the time for a soft-fork comes. We shouldn't hard-fork for this change only, but maybe we could do this change when the next hard-fork is scheduled (when we increase the block size?). Regards, S.