📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Note how transaction malleability can quickly sabotage naive notions of this idea.
Equally, if this looks like it might ever be implemented, rather than using a hard fork, using a forced soft-fork to deploy changes becomes attractive.
On 30 December 2015 12:08:36 GMT-08:00, "Emin Gün Sirer via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Ittay Eyal and I just put together a writeup that we're informally
>calling
>Bitcoin-United for preserving the value of coins following a permanent
>fork:
>
>
>http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/12/30/technique-to-unite-bitcoin-factions/
>
>Half of the core idea is to eliminate double-spends (where someone
>spends a
>UTXO on chain A and the same UTXO on chain B, at separate merchants) by
>placing transactions from A on chain B, and by taking the intersection
>of
>transactions on chain A and chain B when considering whether a payment
>has
>been received.
>
>The other half of the core idea is to enable minting of new coins and
>collection of mining fees on both chains, while preserving the 21M
>maximum.
>This is achieved by creating a one-to-one correspondence between coins
>on
>one chain with coins on the other.
>
>Given the level of the audience here, I'm keeping the description quite
>terse. Much more detail and discussion is at the link above, as well as
>the
>assumptions that need to hold for Bitcoin-United.
>
>The high bit is that, with a few modest assumptions, it is possible to
>create a cohesive coin in the aftermath of a fork, even if the core
>devs
>are split, and even if one of the forks is (in the worst case)
>completely
>non-cooperative. Bitcoin-United is a trick to create a cohesive coin
>even
>when there is no consensus at the lowest level.
>
>Bitcoin-United opens up a lot of new, mostly game-theoretic questions:
>what
>happens to native clients who prefer A or B? What will happen to the
>value
>of native-A or native-B coins? And so on.
>
>We're actively working on these questions and more, but we wanted to
>share
>the Bitcoin-United idea, mainly to receive feedback, and partly to
>provide
>some hope about future consensus to the community. It turns out that it
>is
>possible to craft consensus at the network level even when there isn't
>one
>at the developer level.
>
>Happy New Year, and may 2016 be united,
>- egs & ittay
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
- --
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJWhDuA
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MIAIObFNbRRJ5g52H8yprqAjX76Lt7vw+cwCnICNzHra5h
iuTWxgbwED5fki2Q96ZzYAyUf7ju7rI45qBl8YuuVUlyxJgE6oV6h2oJoxGQNGz0
WvrOjWMkmARNs0FM4GMsKQWcmIMgZxWnWTMOXv0EDBLySsm8WFRu9H4drGBB+Fmb
wFRyi0XVDiXxsVUoNj6pCdcpekdnuq+V87IoweoxigfqgWIM31Vb9QK8Y/7vWO2b
0lu0CvVdqvw5Npx55LWLF1tY8jbw6BYvgXwZGtUazKO+x8i3Qt6+tRm07+UXvkoR
3erxzhnoZa3F66ufz+ImY7l0E/AyRE5ox+1W68hO6sk=
=d0+L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 17:47:29
in reply to nevent1q…f028
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:47:29Event JSON
{
"id": "c70f6e226c19cdb299518bf523f7243011b271a18029dc9424692fd835f79505",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160049,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"952f2c3963bbc4e3bc8c1ee62942da7fea09db4c863ca025d9e089b9448e51cb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0afa22c84f12d5bdd687bfb99688dcedd9df14c7b965a919e7359f9535dd6edb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b68afd106d166cdb4d51d8e16c275c09e0a49020fb6f311509c56b6743b37a84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nNote how transaction malleability can quickly sabotage naive notions of this idea.\n\nEqually, if this looks like it might ever be implemented, rather than using a hard fork, using a forced soft-fork to deploy changes becomes attractive.\n\n\nOn 30 December 2015 12:08:36 GMT-08:00, \"Emin Gün Sirer via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003eIttay Eyal and I just put together a writeup that we're informally\n\u003ecalling\n\u003eBitcoin-United for preserving the value of coins following a permanent\n\u003efork:\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003ehttp://hackingdistributed.com/2015/12/30/technique-to-unite-bitcoin-factions/\n\u003e\n\u003eHalf of the core idea is to eliminate double-spends (where someone\n\u003espends a\n\u003eUTXO on chain A and the same UTXO on chain B, at separate merchants) by\n\u003eplacing transactions from A on chain B, and by taking the intersection\n\u003eof\n\u003etransactions on chain A and chain B when considering whether a payment\n\u003ehas\n\u003ebeen received.\n\u003e\n\u003eThe other half of the core idea is to enable minting of new coins and\n\u003ecollection of mining fees on both chains, while preserving the 21M\n\u003emaximum.\n\u003eThis is achieved by creating a one-to-one correspondence between coins\n\u003eon\n\u003eone chain with coins on the other.\n\u003e\n\u003eGiven the level of the audience here, I'm keeping the description quite\n\u003eterse. Much more detail and discussion is at the link above, as well as\n\u003ethe\n\u003eassumptions that need to hold for Bitcoin-United.\n\u003e\n\u003eThe high bit is that, with a few modest assumptions, it is possible to\n\u003ecreate a cohesive coin in the aftermath of a fork, even if the core\n\u003edevs\n\u003eare split, and even if one of the forks is (in the worst case)\n\u003ecompletely\n\u003enon-cooperative. Bitcoin-United is a trick to create a cohesive coin\n\u003eeven\n\u003ewhen there is no consensus at the lowest level.\n\u003e\n\u003eBitcoin-United opens up a lot of new, mostly game-theoretic questions:\n\u003ewhat\n\u003ehappens to native clients who prefer A or B? What will happen to the\n\u003evalue\n\u003eof native-A or native-B coins? And so on.\n\u003e\n\u003eWe're actively working on these questions and more, but we wanted to\n\u003eshare\n\u003ethe Bitcoin-United idea, mainly to receive feedback, and partly to\n\u003eprovide\n\u003esome hope about future consensus to the community. It turns out that it\n\u003eis\n\u003epossible to craft consensus at the network level even when there isn't\n\u003eone\n\u003eat the developer level.\n\u003e\n\u003eHappy New Year, and may 2016 be united,\n\u003e- egs \u0026 ittay\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e_______________________________________________\n\u003ebitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003ebitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003ehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n- --\nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\niQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJWhDuA\nAAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MIAIObFNbRRJ5g52H8yprqAjX76Lt7vw+cwCnICNzHra5h\niuTWxgbwED5fki2Q96ZzYAyUf7ju7rI45qBl8YuuVUlyxJgE6oV6h2oJoxGQNGz0\nWvrOjWMkmARNs0FM4GMsKQWcmIMgZxWnWTMOXv0EDBLySsm8WFRu9H4drGBB+Fmb\nwFRyi0XVDiXxsVUoNj6pCdcpekdnuq+V87IoweoxigfqgWIM31Vb9QK8Y/7vWO2b\n0lu0CvVdqvw5Npx55LWLF1tY8jbw6BYvgXwZGtUazKO+x8i3Qt6+tRm07+UXvkoR\n3erxzhnoZa3F66ufz+ImY7l0E/AyRE5ox+1W68hO6sk=\n=d0+L\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "e5985b5f598bd3ac67bdfdd7829871c23d999ba4ec7cff9f3edd5e270a1b4f98343f63937ffb1800a08d70b7db90de32a94a975e9d9fcdfed31240434e4e4e71"
}