Adam Back [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23 📝 Original message:Some comments: "(i) remove ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-23
📝 Original message:Some comments:
"(i) remove any possibility of free transactions unless
associated with basic transaction data;"
I believe it is not possible to prevent free transactions for the
reason that people can pay out of band (via existing banking transfers
to miners) or make payments to addresses belonging to miners (that are
contingent on the requested user transaction being processed via input
dependency) .
I am not sure I fully understand the way you see monetisation working,
and you do indicate this is quite far future what-if stage idea, and
you do identify a conflict with fungibility - but I think this is
probably quite badly in conflict with fungibility to the point of
conflicting with many planned Bitcoin improvements? And mid term
technical directions.
I would say the long term idealised requirements are that the
transaction itself would have cryptographic fungibility, and policy
relating to identity for authorisation, approval in regulated
transactions would take place at the payment protocol layer. The
payment protocol is already seeing some use.
Lightning protocol sees more of the data going point to point and so
not broadcast nor visible for big data analytic monetisation.
Adam
On 22 August 2015 at 23:51, Jorge Timón
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Again, did you got a bip number asigned or did you self-assigned it yourself?
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In response to public and private comments and feedback, we have updated
>> this working draft.
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBOUVtOHJQdlhvUmc/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> Update highlights:
>>
>> 1. Specific clarifications on replacing the Coinbase subsidy and
>> supplementing and not replacing transaction fees.
>>
>> 2. Clarification on block chain overhead. The value of data mining is on a
>> bell curve, so year six data will be removed every year.
>>
>> 3. Added references to an ability to create global, national and regional
>> Bitcoin Price Indices for popular baskets of goods transacted with Bitcoin.
>>
>> 4. Added references for an ability to use structured block chain data for
>> Bitcoin capacity and fork planning.
>>
>> 5. Removed references to price speculation.
>>
>> 6. Added preferences for deployment dates of January 2017 or January 2018.
>>
>> 7. Moving towards BIP format after discussion and evaluation period.
>> Technical content will increase in due course and discussion content will be
>> removed.
>>
>> Further views and feedback welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ahmed
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ahmed Zsales <ahmedzsales18 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here we propose a long-term solution to replace mining rewards and
>>> transactions fees.
>>>
>>> BIP 104 is currently a discussion draft only.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBSXpoUjRkc01QUGc/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Views and feedback welcome.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ahmed
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
📝 Original message:Some comments:
"(i) remove any possibility of free transactions unless
associated with basic transaction data;"
I believe it is not possible to prevent free transactions for the
reason that people can pay out of band (via existing banking transfers
to miners) or make payments to addresses belonging to miners (that are
contingent on the requested user transaction being processed via input
dependency) .
I am not sure I fully understand the way you see monetisation working,
and you do indicate this is quite far future what-if stage idea, and
you do identify a conflict with fungibility - but I think this is
probably quite badly in conflict with fungibility to the point of
conflicting with many planned Bitcoin improvements? And mid term
technical directions.
I would say the long term idealised requirements are that the
transaction itself would have cryptographic fungibility, and policy
relating to identity for authorisation, approval in regulated
transactions would take place at the payment protocol layer. The
payment protocol is already seeing some use.
Lightning protocol sees more of the data going point to point and so
not broadcast nor visible for big data analytic monetisation.
Adam
On 22 August 2015 at 23:51, Jorge Timón
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Again, did you got a bip number asigned or did you self-assigned it yourself?
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In response to public and private comments and feedback, we have updated
>> this working draft.
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBOUVtOHJQdlhvUmc/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> Update highlights:
>>
>> 1. Specific clarifications on replacing the Coinbase subsidy and
>> supplementing and not replacing transaction fees.
>>
>> 2. Clarification on block chain overhead. The value of data mining is on a
>> bell curve, so year six data will be removed every year.
>>
>> 3. Added references to an ability to create global, national and regional
>> Bitcoin Price Indices for popular baskets of goods transacted with Bitcoin.
>>
>> 4. Added references for an ability to use structured block chain data for
>> Bitcoin capacity and fork planning.
>>
>> 5. Removed references to price speculation.
>>
>> 6. Added preferences for deployment dates of January 2017 or January 2018.
>>
>> 7. Moving towards BIP format after discussion and evaluation period.
>> Technical content will increase in due course and discussion content will be
>> removed.
>>
>> Further views and feedback welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ahmed
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ahmed Zsales <ahmedzsales18 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here we propose a long-term solution to replace mining rewards and
>>> transactions fees.
>>>
>>> BIP 104 is currently a discussion draft only.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBSXpoUjRkc01QUGc/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Views and feedback welcome.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ahmed
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev