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-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Vt3TK-0001Ez-7e
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Vt3TJ-0001EP-0m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BFF51080838;
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:24 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.1-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <20131217224130.GC3180@nl.grid.coop>
In-Reply-To: <20131217224130.GC3180@nl.grid.coop>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201312172250.24887.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1Vt3TJ-0001EP-0m
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: MERGE transaction/script/process for
forked chains
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, 17 Dec 2013 22:50:38 -0000
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:41:30 PM Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> I want to get some feedback.. I've used distributed version control
> systems for a long time, and the most useful feature is to be able
> to merge two different forks.
>
> So what's the equivalent of this for Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies?
>
> Let's suppose that me and my friends get 'islanded' from the rest of
> the internet for a week, but we still want to trade bitcoin. It would
> work if there are local miners, until we reconnect.
>
> Suppose we have the main chain (Alice), while bob is on a boat, trading
> with some friends, but has no network connectivity.
>
> When bob reconnects with Alice, a 'Merge' transaction happens where a
> miner looks at bob's forked blockchain, sees no double-spends, and
> includes BOTH chains.
>
> Now suppose someone on bob's boat has a buggy client, or sent a
> transaction before disconnect that results in a double-spend on the
> merge.
>
> So we have a merge conflict, which generally requires human interaction,
> so bob and his friends broadcast a MERGE request with a transaction fee
> sufficient to cover reconciling the double-spends, AND incentivize a
> miner to do some extra work to merge.
>
> Thoughts everyone?
This is interesting, but I'm not sure it has the right incentives. First, it
adds more reason for miners to *avoid* including transactions (they might turn
out to be double-spends and make merging costly). Second, it gives people
reason to double-spend (the miner might cover the cost of it). Finally, you
don't appear to address how to deal with the subsidy - do both miners get it?
Luke
|
