From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XZUtT-0004Jk-Uf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 01:09:19 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.108 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.108; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148108.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.108]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1XZUtS-00007d-2d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 01:09:19 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s92199SY065784; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 02:09:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from [25.162.121.21] ([24.114.45.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s92194iw026116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Oct 2014 02:09:05 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <201410020055.37347.luke@dashjr.org> References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org> <201410011823.56441.luke@dashjr.org> <201410020055.37347.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Peter Todd Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:09:01 -0700 To: Luke Dashjr Message-ID: X-Server-Quench: b4cb6703-49d0-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdgAUF1YAAgsB AmIbW1ZeUFR7WWU7 aQ5PbARZfE5LQQRp VFdNRFdNFUsrCB4A DxpHFRlwcQRHfjB3 bEVgECJfDxZ8ckZ+ X0pdQW0bZGY1bH0W BkdcagNUcgZDfk5E aVUrVz1vNG8XDQg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCXUhPwZ0 SwoLEykaVWYlag4Q CzsNCWI9OWsvH38T H2ppHBpQCwUfFABY AyBESDNJIEQdDyQx CgYSV0MfFjIVWj9R BAFgPxlUAzgaUywQ CVtdSgsGFyJCVmFU STNQOgAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.45.134/465 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1XZUtS-00007d-2d Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time 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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 01:09:20 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 1 October 2014 17:55:36 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr wrote: >On Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:05:15 AM Peter Todd wrote: >> On 1 October 2014 11:23:55 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr >wrote: >> >Thoughts on some way to have the stack item be incremented by the >> >height at >> >which the scriptPubKey was in a block? >> >> Better to create a GET-TXIN-BLOCK-(TIME/HEIGHT)-EQUALVERIFY operator. >> scriptPubKey would be: >> GET-TXIN-BLOCKHEIGHT-EQUALVERIFY >> (fails unless top stack item is equal to the txin block height) >> ADD >> (top stack item is now txin height + delta height) >> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY > >This sounds do-able, although it doesn't address using timestamps. For timestamps replace "height" with "time" in the above example; the minimum block time rule will prevent gaming it. >> You'd want these sacrifices to unlock years into the future to >thoroughly >> exceed any reasonable business cycle; that's so far into the future >that >> miners are almost certain to just mine them and collect the fees. > >For many use cases, short maturity periods are just as appropriate IMO. Very easy to incentivise mining centralisation with short maturities. I personally think just destroying coins is better, but it doesn't sit well with people so this is the next best thing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.1.1 iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJULKWsMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8 cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhcg8CACueZNGfWaZR+xyG9/o JwDBCnqOtwr6Bnosg3vNcRIDUnmsh+Qkk5dk2JpqYNYw7C3duhlwHshgsGOFkHEV f5RHDwkzGLJDLXrBwxxcIDdm3cJL8UVpQzJ7dD7aSnfj7MU/0aru3HaIU2ZfymUb 63jhul6FGbXH3K6p3bOoNrfIrCCGOv8jOIzeAgxNPydk8MVPgRhlYLAKBJxu8nMr 1oJGeaKVSGSPSrRdgS8tI4uOs0F4Q49APrLPGxGTERlATmWrr+asHGJTIxsB2IEm vrNgVRpkaN4Of9k96qzD9ReKfBfqm0WQKLolcXCVqGpdoHcvXh2AeWdjB/EFTyOq SOgO =WybM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----