1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1WV5gl-0000Kt-EX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:53:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WV5gk-00078J-Kl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:53:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ur14so5372123igb.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.156.18 with SMTP id lk18mr3485387icc.77.1396385617328;
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.141.135 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140401200039.GA10403@tilt>
References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140401200039.GA10403@tilt>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:53:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgiqT9MARkSdTVCe37Kpkyj3-Uwe66a5U+HGnOtU6Qc7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WV5gk-00078J-Kl
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:53:43 -0000
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
>
> What's interesting about this bug is we could also fix the problem - the
> economic shock - by first implementing the OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode
> in a soft-fork, followed by a second soft-fork requiring miners to
> "pay-forward" a percentage of their coinbase outputs to the future.
> (remember that whomever mines a block controls what
> recently-made-available anyone-can-spend txouts are included in their
> block) We could then pick the distribution rate fairly arbitrarily; I
> propose the following linear distribution:
Interesting idea, but perhaps we can keep that change for a future
hard fork, as Matt suggested? That means it could be implemented much
more concisely too.
Mike, I'm sad to hear you feel that way. I'll move your name in the
document from ACKnowledgements to NAKnowledgements.
As this is a relatively urgent matter - we risk forks within 250 years
otherwise, I'd like to move this forward quickly.
In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who
disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any
number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite.
--
Pieter
|
