đź“… Original date posted:2019-05-23
đź“ť Original message:The complains I could imagine about this, (apart from being a very
specific use case) are the same complains I heard about op_expiry.
Namely, that in a reorg, the same tx, having been valid in a given
block could potentially become invalid in some other block mining it.
I guess in this case the situation is less likely in this case than
with op_expiry, but it is still possible.
Another complain I could imagine is this kind of forces the
implementation to break some existing encapsulations, but I guess
those are just implementation details not that relevant here.
I personally don't have strong feelings towards this proposal one way
or the other, I'm just imagining what other people may complain about.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Difficulty change has profound impact on miner’s production thereby introduce the biggest risk while considering an investment.
> Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures.
>
> I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin.
>
> A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated in block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block in the future.
> A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty for the block the transaction is included into.
> The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike which key can spend it.
> The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who entered the bet.
> The winner would broadcast.
>
> Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk and would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet.
>
> I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve significant economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with Bitcoin’s aim not to introduce 3rd party to do so.
>
> Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute?
>
> Tamas Blummer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Jorge TimĂłn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 18:18:11
in reply to nevent1q…er0x
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:18:11Event JSON
{
"id": "d5af0e0fa9d961bec7653afeb01a54c902db19ae0ef37264c072cced94cafcae",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686161891,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b72b1e530f79fa4fb81932af44198e28a4dcc369f9d5dfdf733984b5542ef714",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3bf86cfc967d8c27504e35464319a43ab6003d580e151fa5c08d927412b9b398",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-05-23\n📝 Original message:The complains I could imagine about this, (apart from being a very\nspecific use case) are the same complains I heard about op_expiry.\nNamely, that in a reorg, the same tx, having been valid in a given\nblock could potentially become invalid in some other block mining it.\nI guess in this case the situation is less likely in this case than\nwith op_expiry, but it is still possible.\nAnother complain I could imagine is this kind of forces the\nimplementation to break some existing encapsulations, but I guess\nthose are just implementation details not that relevant here.\nI personally don't have strong feelings towards this proposal one way\nor the other, I'm just imagining what other people may complain about.\n\nOn Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Difficulty change has profound impact on miner’s production thereby introduce the biggest risk while considering an investment.\n\u003e Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated in block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block in the future.\n\u003e A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty for the block the transaction is included into.\n\u003e The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike which key can spend it.\n\u003e The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who entered the bet.\n\u003e The winner would broadcast.\n\u003e\n\u003e Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk and would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet.\n\u003e\n\u003e I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve significant economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with Bitcoin’s aim not to introduce 3rd party to do so.\n\u003e\n\u003e Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute?\n\u003e\n\u003e Tamas Blummer\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "ddd95a78674c9b9031c7bde4ea208caac5123db161d43889ede333119750cfd7b3d718ac8175e5c06c82342bafc202d12abce9a938a2a202ba682029939add5a"
}