On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote: > Hi there, > > comments in-line: > > >> I later wrote up the idea in the context of adding Zerocoin to > >> Bitcoin: > >> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02472.html > >> > > For the sake of maximum clarity with respect to modelling the value of > a Bitcoin, I don't think that approaches which change the number > of coins that can possibly be circulated should be encouraged. > > So, I like the idea of having the "sacrificed" coins appearing in the > mining fees in a future block. But what is meant with OP_DEPTH in this > context? From what I read, this operation just manipulates the stack > size when evaluating the script, so I don't see how it would > affect miner incentives.
Oh, where I was saying OP_DEPTH, I was referring to a *hypothetical*
opcode; I'd forgotten when I wrote that post that OP_DEPTH is an real
opcode.
These days I'd suggest you use the (upcoming on BTC/live on Viacoin)
OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode instead. Pretty simple really:
<current blockheight + 1 year worth of blocks> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000165ecbd638ec09226f84c34d3d775d34ca5df4abfa8cb57c
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
