Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132C6C43 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:29:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B547170 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so113410666lbc.2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:29:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=WFatydTMzkhUCL9SLz6jiTd+yHbr2BcWr1NcMqHzMqw=; b=F7zQc1JUtJJg14dyIuuWrlWk0mN7vHPNUV/k4o6APV0W5XVKgBRam4gmhOcuNznUS5 yk0+iJuHi5GhH6QeInOKfxRBoNC2ThGBlWVH+l0jkmJarnRxoM3Tn4qoI7QTVSrlg2q7 4BlluQA1dVu2zCPi1VsBhuDBW8LgAB7m4m+6ZPAZlBnYn3xqKt20zUyAz+XnfAsgv7iT YJ4yG4NAC77XeQd1Xxnsw6BVnbG9Tb06/tSwwAcuM+kh++gF+cUxJfCofgByWZgwOP/X ZVtRJBkxRgtjOS8wqajpsTbkwFW12epz8/kwbXdxWUqibEOlV7Tp0Vk1xX6UkgCV2lWF 82tw== X-Received: by 10.152.21.231 with SMTP id y7mr26205120lae.63.1440570550718; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:29:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:28:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150826002958.GA10628@muck> References: <20150825201643.GC11083@muck> <1489961.GhSFCGzPRJ@crushinator> <20150825203744.GB3464@muck> <55DCDB98.80004@bitcartel.com> <20150826002958.GA10628@muck> From: Hector Chu Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev , greg@xiph.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap [BIP 1xx - Draft] 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, 26 Aug 2015 06:29:16 -0000 On 26 August 2015 at 01:29, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > For instance, a very simple toy example that would work is just XORing your vote with SHA256(the entire blockchain) Uh, that would totally not work. I think my proposal of using CLTV to lock coins (votes) is better. Failing a soft-fork to implement that in time, counting votes from the UTXO set is also ok - the difference between that and CLTV is that it is not as strong an evidence of commitment.