MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL5BAw2GoQb3-R1Ybe581MbOQvx8wvT0bLoEQ29caNVJTFShmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALKSEdq0CUKPY2u+WfAaWtg5nXYKCJzRnDbU2iMs8PQQSpPDGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5BAw2GoQb3-R1Ybe581MbOQvx8wvT0bLoEQ29caNVJTFShmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:29:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJhN=Se=kqrFR_B4zJQGf3iBpM6hU+xeUN9eANsmVuwXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Riley <criley@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b2e022abaad0557586c71"
Cc: Matthew Beton <matthew.beton@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UTXO growth scaling solution proposal
Precedence: list

--001a114b2e022abaad0557586c71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat
to the security of Bitcoin.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a114b2e022abaad0557586c71
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum =
computing threat to the security of Bitcoin.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9=
:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists=
.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div dir=3D"ltr">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 &quot;stale&quot; or someone is &quot;hoarding&quot; is=
=C2=A0antithetical to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longe=
r control your own money (&quot;be your own bank&quot;) 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?<div><br></div><div>I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (=
he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if you aren&#39;t aware) after 100 or 200 ye=
ars expecting his coins to be there only to find out that his coins were de=
emed &quot;stale&quot; so were &quot;reclaimed&quot; (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 &quot;stale&quot; before they are avail=
able.=C2=A0 He said in March 2013, &quot;I think they&#39;re safe enough&qu=
ot; stored in a paper wallet.=C2=A0 Perhaps any remaining coins are no long=
er &quot;safe enough.&quot;<br><div><br></div><div>Again, this seems (a) mo=
re about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better in bitcoin-discuss at best =
vs bitcoin-dev. I&#39;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&#39;s coins for any reason is a useful change to bitcoin.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div class=3D"h5">On Tue, Aug 22=
, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitc=
oin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><span>Okay so I quit=
e 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 halvi=
ng interval. We can look at this like so:</span><br><br><span>B - the curre=
nt block number</span><br><span>P - how many blocks behind current the coin=
 burning block is. (630000, 840000, or otherwise.)</span><br><br><span>Ever=
y 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&#39;s miner fees. This k=
eeps 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.</span>
<br></div></div><span class=3D"">______________________________<wbr>_______=
__________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a114b2e022abaad0557586c71--