Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-10-01 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-10-01
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 1 October 2014 17:55:36 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:05:15 AM Peter Todd wrote:
>> On 1 October 2014 11:23:55 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
>wrote:
>> >Thoughts on some way to have the stack item be incremented by the
>> >height at
>> >which the scriptPubKey was in a block?
>>
>> Better to create a GET-TXIN-BLOCK-(TIME/HEIGHT)-EQUALVERIFY operator.
>> scriptPubKey would be:
>> GET-TXIN-BLOCKHEIGHT-EQUALVERIFY
>> (fails unless top stack item is equal to the txin block height)
>> <delta height> ADD
>> (top stack item is now txin height + delta height)
>> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
>
>This sounds do-able, although it doesn't address using timestamps.
For timestamps replace "height" with "time" in the above example; the minimum block time rule will prevent gaming it.
>> You'd want these sacrifices to unlock years into the future to
>thoroughly
>> exceed any reasonable business cycle; that's so far into the future
>that
>> miners are almost certain to just mine them and collect the fees.
>
>For many use cases, short maturity periods are just as appropriate IMO.
Very easy to incentivise mining centralisation with short maturities. I personally think just destroying coins is better, but it doesn't sit well with people so this is the next best thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJULKWsMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhcg8CACueZNGfWaZR+xyG9/o
JwDBCnqOtwr6Bnosg3vNcRIDUnmsh+Qkk5dk2JpqYNYw7C3duhlwHshgsGOFkHEV
f5RHDwkzGLJDLXrBwxxcIDdm3cJL8UVpQzJ7dD7aSnfj7MU/0aru3HaIU2ZfymUb
63jhul6FGbXH3K6p3bOoNrfIrCCGOv8jOIzeAgxNPydk8MVPgRhlYLAKBJxu8nMr
1oJGeaKVSGSPSrRdgS8tI4uOs0F4Q49APrLPGxGTERlATmWrr+asHGJTIxsB2IEm
vrNgVRpkaN4Of9k96qzD9ReKfBfqm0WQKLolcXCVqGpdoHcvXh2AeWdjB/EFTyOq
SOgO
=WybM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 1 October 2014 17:55:36 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:05:15 AM Peter Todd wrote:
>> On 1 October 2014 11:23:55 GMT-07:00, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org>
>wrote:
>> >Thoughts on some way to have the stack item be incremented by the
>> >height at
>> >which the scriptPubKey was in a block?
>>
>> Better to create a GET-TXIN-BLOCK-(TIME/HEIGHT)-EQUALVERIFY operator.
>> scriptPubKey would be:
>> GET-TXIN-BLOCKHEIGHT-EQUALVERIFY
>> (fails unless top stack item is equal to the txin block height)
>> <delta height> ADD
>> (top stack item is now txin height + delta height)
>> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
>
>This sounds do-able, although it doesn't address using timestamps.
For timestamps replace "height" with "time" in the above example; the minimum block time rule will prevent gaming it.
>> You'd want these sacrifices to unlock years into the future to
>thoroughly
>> exceed any reasonable business cycle; that's so far into the future
>that
>> miners are almost certain to just mine them and collect the fees.
>
>For many use cases, short maturity periods are just as appropriate IMO.
Very easy to incentivise mining centralisation with short maturities. I personally think just destroying coins is better, but it doesn't sit well with people so this is the next best thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJULKWsMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhcg8CACueZNGfWaZR+xyG9/o
JwDBCnqOtwr6Bnosg3vNcRIDUnmsh+Qkk5dk2JpqYNYw7C3duhlwHshgsGOFkHEV
f5RHDwkzGLJDLXrBwxxcIDdm3cJL8UVpQzJ7dD7aSnfj7MU/0aru3HaIU2ZfymUb
63jhul6FGbXH3K6p3bOoNrfIrCCGOv8jOIzeAgxNPydk8MVPgRhlYLAKBJxu8nMr
1oJGeaKVSGSPSrRdgS8tI4uOs0F4Q49APrLPGxGTERlATmWrr+asHGJTIxsB2IEm
vrNgVRpkaN4Of9k96qzD9ReKfBfqm0WQKLolcXCVqGpdoHcvXh2AeWdjB/EFTyOq
SOgO
=WybM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----