public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_DIFFICULTY to enable difficulty hedges (bets) without an oracle and 3rd party.
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 21:03:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoFS=dNbqzEo+RcWb32Kx4QM7YHLxYLOG54a=RGR8rQcw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42F53D61-BAAE-464F-BB0D-4D0CDC554D9A@gmail.com>

The complains I could imagine about this, (apart from being a very
specific use case) are the same complains I heard about op_expiry.
Namely, that in a reorg, the same tx, having been valid in a given
block could potentially become invalid in some other block mining it.
I guess in this case the situation is less likely in this case than
with op_expiry, but it is still possible.
Another complain I could imagine is this kind of forces the
implementation to break some existing encapsulations, but I guess
those are just implementation details not that relevant here.
I personally don't have strong feelings towards this proposal one way
or the other, I'm just imagining what other people may complain about.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Difficulty change has profound impact on miner’s production thereby introduce the biggest risk while considering an investment.
> Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures.
>
> I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin.
>
> A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated in block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block in the future.
> A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty for the block the transaction is included into.
> The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike which key can spend it.
> The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who entered the bet.
> The winner would broadcast.
>
> Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk and would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet.
>
> I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve significant economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with Bitcoin’s aim not to introduce 3rd party to do so.
>
> Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute?
>
> Tamas Blummer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-23 19:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-20 20:58 [bitcoin-dev] Congestion Control via OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY proposal Jeremy
2019-05-21 19:41 ` Matt Corallo
2019-05-22  1:47   ` Jeremy
2019-05-22  2:51 ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-05-22  5:11   ` Jeremy
2019-05-22  6:04     ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-05-22  8:10       ` Jeremy
2019-05-23  3:45         ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-05-24 21:15           ` Jeremy
2019-05-25  3:56             ` ZmnSCPxj
2019-05-22 20:49       ` Anthony Towns
2019-05-23 17:42 ` [bitcoin-dev] OP_DIFFICULTY to enable difficulty hedges (bets) without an oracle and 3rd party Tamas Blummer
2019-05-23 19:03   ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2019-05-23 19:10     ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-23 19:05   ` Nathan Cook
2019-05-23 19:18     ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-23 19:21       ` Nathan Cook
2019-05-23 19:45         ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-23 19:54           ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-23 20:07             ` Nathan Cook
2019-05-23 19:45   ` Pieter Wuille
2019-05-23 20:26     ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-24  8:36     ` Natanael
2019-05-24 16:23       ` Tamas Blummer
2019-05-24  8:15   ` Johnson Lau
2019-05-24 19:12 ` [bitcoin-dev] Congestion Control via OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY proposal Johnson Lau
2019-05-24 20:36   ` Jeremy

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='CABm2gDoFS=dNbqzEo+RcWb32Kx4QM7YHLxYLOG54a=RGR8rQcw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tamas.blummer@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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