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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ukgc3-00024y-Ie for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:16:47 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of antonopoulos.com designates 209.85.219.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=andreas@antonopoulos.com; helo=mail-oa0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ukgc2-0003Vn-Jm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:16:47 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so1064155oag.30 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=6P6wS8IWEC6CCfcVaMwnWYq2EDhNk4h7SDAfBf/raI0=; b=LGm8qbhp5SsSQ2AsBT4W0vLUiiOf+snAa4CP6Igu2oCOfGNZDu4lC5uCKE1CL2AdXB K4BEAGSIdJmB52V5Eq/k7X4S2Kze6+FrJbws9xcbrmJgOtnLH2IXY/93/hj1Pkgt0MWf PxghKMPaohN9AqbOOJ0u8SVkvsEYGwhngjhEv9eDID+FVGAl3Ci2TkKv0ZVcLT1IcWFd fc7dFQ5Aupdz6XNVYndv8bEPLeXb7vgGI5pRrVXOqFy+YllxAvKRPg1v+vURVV7Uj91x lMozaPo3lULp6mUuQZfjFIBaqikFroyhg6WaL6BOgiaV6hbfYZoKyaGA1qC7vns8Ia9k xh5g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.135.134 with SMTP id ps6mr18868850oeb.114.1370549801086; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: andreas@antonopoulos.com Received: by 10.182.17.9 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:16:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201306062007.41398.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201306061914.20006.luke@dashjr.org> <201306062007.41398.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:16:40 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _BdsrxHIjWLV_3LqY47DVcLexMA Message-ID: From: "Andreas M. Antonopoulos" To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33ce8c0a823904de81fedf X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYo94GEhfy8qKiw28KK+vuCop/hDtit2G6GU0NDsDmjOUS2Yo8r7KSL2+GevD5HITBwR+E X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Headers-End: 1Ukgc2-0003Vn-Jm Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks 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, 06 Jun 2013 20:16:47 -0000 --047d7b33ce8c0a823904de81fedf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > This doesn't work like you might think: first of all, the fees today are > greatly subsidized - the actual cost to store data in the blockchain is > much > higher than most storage solutions. Secondly, only the miner receives the > fees, not the majority of nodes which have to bear the burden of the data. > That is, the fee system is setup as an antispam/deterrant, not as payment > for > storage. > There's a difference between storing the content itself, and storing just a hash to content (which however is not spendable payment). I undertand why content itself doesn't belong. But it goes too far to say that only payments should be allowed. If the fees are not enough, fix the fee structure, don't stop incredibly innovative and promising uses of the distributed timestamping database. That is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the issue is size, then address that, rather than the content itself. Have I misunderstood this discussion or are some proposing than nothing except payments be allowed? Discriminating based on transaction content violates neutrality of the protocol and in my mind removes a very very large possibility of future innovation. If bitcoin is a *platform* and not just a payment system, then it needs to be neutral to content, like TCP/IP so that other protocols can be layered. Solve the size problem itself, without picking and chosing which uses of bitcoin are good and which are "bad" or "spam". I think it risks killing a tremendous amount of innovation just as it is starting. > > > > Not the same thing at all; nobody is forced to store/relay > video/voice/images > without reimbursement. On the other hand, any full Bitcoin node is > required to > at least download the entire blockchain once. And the network as a whole > suffers if nodes decide to start not-storing parts of the blockchain they > don't want to deal with. > > So don't store content, but allow hashes of content. Again, I think it is extreme and extremely restrictive to say that ONLY payments are allowed. > This is how merged mining solves the problem. A single extra hash in the > coinbase can link the bitcoin blockchain up with unlimited other data. > > > Can you explain this part or refer me to some docs? What do you mean by "coinbase", I assume not the company. Thanks for the reply and explanation! > --047d7b33ce8c0a823904de81fedf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
This doesn't work like you might think: = first of all, the fees today are
greatly subsidized - the actual cost to store data in the blockchain is muc= h
higher than most storage solutions. Secondly, only the miner receives the fees, not the majority of nodes which have to bear the burden of the data.<= br> That is, the fee system is setup as an antispam/deterrant, not as payment f= or
storage.
=A0
There's a difference = between storing the content itself, and storing just a hash to content (whi= ch however is not spendable payment). I undertand why content itself doesn&= #39;t belong. But it goes too far to say that only payments should be allow= ed.=A0

If the fees are not enough, fix the fee str= ucture, don't stop incredibly innovative and promising uses of the dist= ributed timestamping database. That is definitely throwing the baby out wit= h the bathwater. If the issue is size, then address that, rather than the c= ontent itself.=A0

Have I misunderstood this discussion = or are some proposing than nothing except payments be allowed?

Discriminating based on transaction content violat= es neutrality of the protocol and in my mind removes a very very large poss= ibility of future innovation. If bitcoin is a platform and not just = a payment system, then it needs to be neutral to content, like TCP/IP so th= at other protocols can be layered. Solve the size problem itself, without p= icking and chosing which uses of bitcoin are good and which are "bad&q= uot; or "spam". I think it risks killing a tremendous amount of i= nnovation just as it is starting.



Not the same thing at all; nobody is forced to store/relay video/voic= e/images
without reimbursement. On the other hand, any full Bitcoin node is required= to
at least download the entire blockchain once. And the network as a whole suffers if nodes decide to start not-storing parts of the blockchain they don't want to deal with.

So don't store cont= ent, but allow hashes of content.=A0
Again, I think it is e= xtreme and extremely restrictive to say that ONLY payments are allowed. =A0=

=A0
This is how merged mining solves the problem. A single extra hash in = the
coinbase can link the bitcoin blockchain up with unlimited other data.



Can = you explain this part or refer me to some docs? What do you mean by "c= oinbase", I assume not the company.=A0


Thanks for the reply and explanation!
--047d7b33ce8c0a823904de81fedf--