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 A25ECB15 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:05:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8916644E for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j144so58676445oib.1 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7Deh8cxwn04xukt5xPGI6RJeCZVgfsoe6bhifko06rQ=; b=XYx0dX/+NgLbly0bJBB9d00I/eXJspiLnFfqCLzpMIVkQ5r8jkBt35Tc4EExtUqrRY moqPKlZCAi0JnBGzcIW+lCRgzaxSUXxJPWy7getiHXz3LBL/b5LpzuX8+tZuMBp87VR3 0AwkvxKv6XpLnb/7Il9PNRdOW4AZ6ZTIOBFrAW/Y4FzVuF6Cz4wF0q+OL62arjn7j3TU LWyKmWNUUR6lYwTrO49MNHP9KYPepJpkeyUgqFMhHi6K2NJl7B/DTTfMXZUdjcdJhCNe 8JTiUwBYDAIroT/Hl7u86+4vvVrfgdKXH4K6zJwzguqj/fYXvH5e11WzbGWqNrWkDqQ6 sIjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=7Deh8cxwn04xukt5xPGI6RJeCZVgfsoe6bhifko06rQ=; b=FlDhRqLdmt0jWaVz+A0IsGkk+3kRxsSVmz2J9xiPfJ+vj2gclLZy+1dwAR2gqclHXO ny+2CAJfJhgHzrO5QPmioOupy4BDuyEUBKZsnLNM0sGt9o1kPBrAZeEgN/eIKmfjajHZ dxdk//cfQ2F9F3A81NhbKwWHsdqTm8SonB6zsHfNfwvI/AvDrkMB/oIZ2kYmbwBGwa6B DgoVWLRkQQJN9XtEIwcwutzVF/ayKu1xQcvi5u/oU95EBg8f9BsePMfbBO819wsWoe2x 0y6x6irntWjmL7NhptroPIlEc/33SJCnLQzZU7x8ugF++Nj3RVe+EvFmMVfyw3MLOsJz pukA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5i+DhdQV1iJxi0YDWlcnBCdFZBjRksXwyJnJarPkwmrMA+isOQ5 0LsJ/K0BWYbhFtHr5LGnAoMTu3cJaA== X-Received: by 10.202.53.195 with SMTP id c186mr1017131oia.76.1503410700496; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Matthew Beton Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:04:49 +0000 Message-ID: To: Chris Riley , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:05:01 -0000 --001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number of bitcoins tied up in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppose this isn't so much of a problem if it's well known that the bitcoins are all tied up. It would be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins people have lost access to, and bitcoins that people have just left in the same wallet for a long time. On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 3:45 pm Chris Riley wrote: > This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we > can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are > "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of > bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own > bank") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason > that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a > third party. Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why > someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons > will then be determined to be valid? > > I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if > you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there > only to find out that his coins were deemed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in > the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated). Or perhaps he > locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before they > are available. He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough" stored > in a paper wallet. Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer "safe enough." > > Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in > bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times > since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing > someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to > bitcoin. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or >> 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and >> neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so: >> >> B - the current block number >> P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000, >> 840000, or otherwise.) >> >> Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale >> coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This >> keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to >> stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving >> their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it. >> > _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > --001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, I see your point. I was just thinking about the number= of bitcoins tied up in wallets in which people lost the keys, but I suppos= e this isn't so much of a problem if it's well known that the bitco= ins are all tied up. It would be impossible to distinguish between bitcoins= people have lost access to, and bitcoins that people have just left in the= same wallet for a long time.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017,= 3:45 pm Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com> wrote:
This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion.= =C2=A0 The idea that we can change the rules and steal coins at a later dat= e because they are "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is= =C2=A0antithetical to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longe= r control your own money ("be your own bank") because someone can= at a later date take your coins for some reason that is outside your contr= ol and solely based on some rationalization by a third party.=C2=A0 Once th= e rule is established that there are valid reasons why someone should not h= ave control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons will then be determin= ed to be valid?

I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (= he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 ye= ars expecting his coins to be there only to find out that his coins were de= emed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in the current double= speak - e.g. stolen or confiscated).=C2=A0 Or perhaps he locked some for hi= s children and they are found to be "stale" before they are avail= able.=C2=A0 He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough&qu= ot; stored in a paper wallet.=C2=A0 Perhaps any remaining coins are no long= er "safe enough."

Again, this seems (a) mo= re about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in bitcoin-discuss at best = vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many times since 2010 and still = do not agree with the rational that embracing allowing someone to steal som= eone else's coins for any reason is a useful change to bitcoin.




On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton= via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:
Okay so I quite like= this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or 840000 (gives us 4-8 y= ears to develop this solution), it stays nice and neat with the halving int= erval. We can look at this like so:

B - the current blo= ck number
P - how many blocks behind current the coin burni= ng block is. (630000, 840000, or otherwise.)

Every time= we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for stale coins. Thes= e coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. This keeps t= he mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely to stop minin= g due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving their money= around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.
____________________________________= ___________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113cf57cc1342805575814f4--