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 D4EB49CA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (mail-qg0-f51.google.com [209.85.192.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0A8145 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeg42 with SMTP id g42so7346116qge.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=3cnvt+XeArHK0jpKNSqFNup7phpnWP4WFsPnB1MG8go=; b=AQca8XSq5MVeXfliVYBPYBrGnAU2ziuVHHEXjEP6l12+LbRZ/Hs3n9In4wyqj4EbDs kwWyxeo/GLy+Ttft5PtUf265Oe7w91iAHX0nDPcBmcJjYaMN3SMFUhyrFSO98Etp3W05 A8qWkQd0JMPWyNt9Pl09uVfn3zfblXcVNbwsElhBhiPl2rq303uKkEgbyPp8UzRPSqI4 ZG/GU9HUqJMTClIobCs4kKlLF+IomXaLVtHcXMZgnmRzsfmpbHNJhQ4JP9UDJXFlLcMs wpK4buhIYLKEs0ERTkQUuGzBdsBhfxrvXF5POuqkUxevofiH0oJC2GjR+YcIA17nT3e6 s4Rw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.196.8 with SMTP id r8mr25743316qha.25.1439999303861; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46e6bf2dbd8e08745f1c0dbd9f62bc7d@xbt.hk> References: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net> <55D467AF.5030203@riseup.net> <46e6bf2dbd8e08745f1c0dbd9f62bc7d@xbt.hk> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:48:23 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:48:26 -0000 --001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, > Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they > would not adopt XT. So they must not be the leader in this revolution. > Again, miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good > price, and that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors. > So, the exchanges get together to "encourage" the miners to start running bitcoin-XT. What would they do? One scheme would be to create a taint system. All non-XT coinbases outputs are marked as tainted. All outputs are tainted if any of the inputs into a transaction are tainted. Tainted coins can only be un-tainted by sending 0.5% of their value to the public address of one of the participating exchanges (or to OP_RETURN). They could slowly ratchet up the surcharge. Exchanges in the cartel agree not to exchange tainted coins. Even if some still do, the tainted coins are still inherently less valuable, since fewer exchanges accept them. Schemes like that are the main way for non-miners to flex their muscles, even if they seem unsavory. Taint tracking would allow merchants to participate. They could give less credit for tainted bitcoins, even if the exchanges are trying to remain neutral. If that happens, the exchanges could run 2 prices, BTC and BTC-tainted. On the other hand, implementing taint machinery is a bad thing for fungibility. It can also be accomplished with checkpointing. They need to create 1 big block and then agree to checkpoint it. A less strict rule rule could be that blocks after the first big block count as double POW. That means that the big block chain only needs 34% of the hashing power to win. --001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:22 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, = Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they wo= uld not adopt XT. So they must not be the leader in this revolution. Again,= miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good price, an= d that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors.

So, the exchanges get together to "enco= urage" the miners to start running bitcoin-XT.=C2=A0 What would they d= o?

One scheme would be to create a taint system.=C2=A0 Al= l non-XT coinbases outputs are marked as tainted.=C2=A0 All outputs are tai= nted if any of the inputs into a transaction are tainted.=C2=A0 Tainted coi= ns can only be un-tainted by sending 0.5% of their value to the public addr= ess of one of the participating exchanges (or to OP_RETURN).=C2=A0 They cou= ld slowly ratchet up the surcharge.

Exchanges in the cart= el agree not to exchange tainted coins.=C2=A0 Even if some still do, the ta= inted coins are still inherently less valuable, since fewer exchanges accep= t them.

Schemes like that are the main way for non-= miners to flex their muscles, even if they seem unsavory.

Taint tracking would allow merchants to participate.=C2=A0 They could= give less credit for tainted bitcoins, even if the exchanges are trying to= remain neutral.=C2=A0 If that happens, the exchanges could run 2 prices, B= TC and BTC-tainted.

On the other hand, implementing taint= machinery is a bad thing for fungibility.

It = can also be accomplished with checkpointing.=C2=A0 They need to create 1 bi= g block and then agree to checkpoint it.

A less strict ru= le rule could be that blocks after the first big block count as double POW.= =C2=A0 That means that the big block chain only needs 34% of the hashing po= wer to win.
--001a11431b18fbcc00051dabf612--