Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-12 Thread Ricardo Filipe via bitcoin-dev
t; > From: Ricardo Filipe > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:44 AM > To: Teweldemedhin Aberra; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch > > > > yes > > > > 2017-12-12 1:10 GMT+00:00 Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-de

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Teweldemedhin Aberra via bitcoin-dev
Hi, The only solution other than Dead Man's Switch to avoid gradual loss Bitcoins in transaction is increasing the divisibiliy of Bitcoins. Then Bitcoin values will need integer of more than 64 bits. Could that be done with soft fork? On Dec 11, 2017 9:42 PM,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
You can implement this already, but only for ~1 year expirations. IF ELSE <1 year> CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY ENDIF Perhaps it would make sense to propose a flag extending the range of relative lock-times so you can do several years? Luke On Monday 11 December 2017 5:30:37 PM Teweldemedhin Aberra

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev
Hi, 1. If there are 16.4 million mined and 4 million are lost, that results in 12.4 million in circulation vs 14.4 million. 2. Satoshi addressed this as have numerous other people ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647 ) - lost coins decrease supply, increasing value of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
On Dec 11, 2017 10:23, "Nick Pudar via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: This topic has come up several times in recent years. While it is well intentioned, it can have devastating outcomes for people that want to save long term. If such a system were implemented, it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Radoslaw Biernacki via bitcoin-dev
Aside from that such change would require a hard fork it also violates one of basic rules of bitcoin, which has long term consequences for miners and for whole Bitcoin economy. In short, after altering the supply limit it would not be "bitcoin" anymore. On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Nick Pudar via bitcoin-dev
This topic has come up several times in recent years. While it is well intentioned, it can have devastating outcomes for people that want to save long term. If such a system were implemented, it would force people to move funds around in order to not get nullified. In that process, it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Dead Man's Switch

2017-12-11 Thread Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev
With all due respect, this isn't a BIP. It's idle speculation regarding what one person considers to be a problem and others may not. Please read https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki and try again. Among other things: - Convince us this is a real issue, and that your