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 DC42C2194 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:45:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BECFC10E for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so15916412ioi.3 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=r353xgq9nP6qHGWm29XRtrt63Y4UQjvKPTrVMK8wvPE=; b=UhSYAhb8Thgu3hadHdzLb2ic3VsBu9/KXtDj5rmOtCj1MU7mAInxb8R7xUYJthtusn 8gGidsxj0E8frp8uu8nExK45Xivu1FGTno5HCICtcyEwGSzFjja0+R9bTbczVnbi6t1k //66dNQOMd7SKrV2pFY3VgBq+vs2Jawl+NnK/xb5cz/WaK/QjpjakfI8qJZhXGqCjIIE Jw5yec0F8TidU8VFazofZoKJyB9rfaqv2/1U8KNVueKqCrRt2GoQ5N83S1tPTgLhlqTk 7dRfo7XTc/sOUUtl2NI0j/fTB+qIpaYe3rGqjUp7hPTXMSDoJqvoV2fs0qnfrMrtyNnx 7XDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.128.106 with SMTP id b103mr679825iod.116.1444211124178; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.85.135 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 02:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: adam@cypherspace.org Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 11:45:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: Dr Adam Back To: Micha Bailey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_NAME_FM_DR, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: [bitcoin-dev] extension-blocks/sidechains & fractional/coin-cap/demurrage (Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!) 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, 07 Oct 2015 09:45:26 -0000 Micha I think you are correct, I dont think extension blocks (or sidechains for that matter) can allow soft-fork increase of the total Bitcoins in the system, because the main chain still enforces the 21m coin cap. A given extension block could go fractional, but if there was a run to get out, the last users out will lose, or they'll all take a hair-cut etc. So presumably users would decline to use an extension block with fractional bitcoin. I mean you could view it like say an exchange (mtgox?) that somehow accidentally or intentionally creates fictional Bitcoin IOUs in it's system, eg in some kind of pyramid scheme - that doesnt create more Bitcoins, it just means people who think they have IOUs for real Bitcoins, are fractional or fake. With an extension block or sidechain furthermore it is transparent so they will know they are fractional. Relatedly it seems possible to implement a sidechain with advertised demurrage, with an exit or entrance fee to discourage holding outside of the chain to avoid demurrage. There are apparently economic arguments for why people might opt in to that (higher velocity economic activity, gresham's law, merchants offering discounts for buying with demurrage Bitcoins, maybe lower per transaction fees because say miners can mine the demurrage). However that is a different topic, again not changing the number of coins in circulation. Adam On 7 October 2015 at 08:13, Micha Bailey via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > On Monday, October 5, 2015, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >>> >>> As Greg explained to you repeatedly, a softfork won't cause a >>> non-upgraded full node to start accepting blocks that create more >>> subsidy than is valid. >> >> >> It was an example. Adam Back's extension blocks proposal would, in fact, >> allow for a soft forking change that creates more subsidy than is valid (or >> does anything else) by hiding one block inside another. > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this turn into a hard fork the > moment you try to spend an output created in one of these extension blocks? > So sure, the block that contains the extension would be considered valid, > but unupgraded validators will not update the UTXO set accordingly, meaning > that those new TXOs can't be spent because, according to their rules, they > don't exist.