Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Jorge Timón
I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD- and -DD-MM.

On 4/4/14, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
 Personally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (-MM-DD) dates as
 well.

 +1 for all-numeric, easily computer parse-able without a lookup table,
 and naturally sorts correctly in a lexicographic sort.

 English (or any language) should never be in a date format, on a computer.

 --
 Jeff Garzik
 Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
 BitPay, Inc.  https://bitpay.com/

 --
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



-- 
Jorge Timón

http://freico.in/

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Matt Whitlock
On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
 I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD- and 
 -DD-MM.

Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date format 
that is unambiguous across all cultures is -MM-DD. (No culture uses 
-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Jorge Timón
On 4/5/14, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
 On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
 I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD- and
 -DD-MM.

 Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date
 format that is unambiguous across all cultures is -MM-DD. (No culture
 uses -DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)

Probably my acceptance of DD-MM- is caused by cultural bias.
The ISO -MM-DD seems what you normally do with indo-arabic
numerals: put the more weighted numbers on the left, so I guess it's
the most universal (in addition to being standard).

-- 
Jorge Timón

http://freico.in/

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Wladimir
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.namewrote:

 On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
  I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD- and
 -DD-MM.

 Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date
 format that is unambiguous across all cultures is -MM-DD. (No culture
 uses -DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)


Let's not waste any time shed-painting this. I'd like to finish this
discussion at once:

https://xkcd.com/1179/

Wladimir
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Daryl Tucker

-MM-DD sorts more naturally.


On 04/05/2014 06:28 AM, Wladimir wrote:

 On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name
 mailto:b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:

 On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Timón wrote:
  I like both DD-MM- and -MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-
 and -DD-MM.

 Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely
 numeric date format that is unambiguous across all cultures is
 -MM-DD. (No culture uses -DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems
 to think so.)


 Let's not waste any time shed-painting this. I'd like to finish this
 discussion at once:

 https://xkcd.com/1179/

 Wladimir




 --


 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

-- 
Daryl Tucker
da...@daryltucker.com



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-05 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:41 PM, kjj bitcoin-de...@jerviss.org wrote:
 At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I
 looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format.  As far
 as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates
 ISO 8601 by half a decade.

In my opinion you can have whatever style you want on the BIPs, so
long as you pledge to slay all who come and complain about the new
style.

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-03 Thread kjj
Matt Whitlock wrote:
 The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 
 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.

At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I 
looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format.  As far 
as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates 
ISO 8601 by half a decade.

Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if 
we desired, adopt a sensible date format here.  The cost to the 
community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen 
people needing to update scripts.  It could even be as simple as one guy 
running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Matt Whitlock
The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 
01-04-2014, per BIP 1.

:-)


On Tuesday, 1 April 2014, at 9:00 pm, Pieter Wuille wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
 
 I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
 wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
 limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
 changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.
 
 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
 
 Please comment!
 
 Thanks,
 
 -- 
 Pieter
 
 --
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all,
 I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
 I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
 wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
 limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
 changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.

 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

A minor nitpick:  It is well known that the Bitcoin core developers
are some of the most active TypeScript coders around,
E.g. http://osrc.dfm.io/sipa  and http://osrc.dfm.io/gavinandresen

But I think this is an important step forward: Seminal alternative
crypto-currencies such as SolidCoin showed us that economic parameters
can be freely changed at any time, for any (or no) reason at all; and
so we should take this opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to
adopting innovative features like non-inflation regardless of their
origins in other crypto-currencies.

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Mike Hearn
This proposal will destroy Bitcoin. I would expect nothing less coming from
a Google employee.
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Luke-Jr
On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:00:07 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
 
 I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
 wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
 limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
 changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.
 
 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
 
 Please comment!

I cleaned it up a bit. By 2214, we should be using tonal numbers after all:

https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/9920788

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Benjamin Cordes
luke, you might enjoy the book Topos of Music. It's a complete
mathematical music theory by a student of Grothendieck. He advanced
Euler's theories of harmony based on advanced category theory. I'm
sure there are many applications to Bitcoin.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
 On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:00:07 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
 Hi all,

 I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.

 I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
 wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
 limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
 changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.

 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

 Please comment!

 I cleaned it up a bit. By 2214, we should be using tonal numbers after all:

 https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/9920788

 --
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Luke-Jr
Please, *music* is obsolete, but inline replies *are not*!

On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:16:42 PM Benjamin Cordes wrote:
 luke, you might enjoy the book Topos of Music. It's a complete
 mathematical music theory by a student of Grothendieck. He advanced
 Euler's theories of harmony based on advanced category theory. I'm
 sure there are many applications to Bitcoin.
 
 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
  On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:00:07 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
  Hi all,
  
  I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
  
  I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
  wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
  limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
  changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.
  
  The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696
  
  Please comment!
  
  I cleaned it up a bit. By 2214, we should be using tonal numbers after
  all:
  
  https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/9920788
  
  -
  - ___
  Bitcoin-development mailing list
  Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Matt Corallo
I disagree with this proposal both in spirit and in practice.

We all know satoshi was the best programmer like no one ever was. Clearly he 
intended this monetary supply from the beginning, who are we but mere mortals 
to go against satoshi's will?

Also, should we really do this with a soft fork when we can take this 
opportunity to redesign the whole system with a hard fork? This is out chance 
to switch to a whole new script engine!

Matt

On April 1, 2014 3:00:07 PM EDT, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,

I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.

I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.

The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

Please comment!

Thanks,

-- 
Pieter

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.
 
 I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
 wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
 limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
 changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.
 
 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

What's interesting about this bug is we could also fix the problem - the
economic shock - by first implementing the OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode
in a soft-fork, followed by a second soft-fork requiring miners to
pay-forward a percentage of their coinbase outputs to the future.
(remember that whomever mines a block controls what
recently-made-available anyone-can-spend txouts are included in their
block) We could then pick the distribution rate fairly arbitrarily; I
propose the following linear distribution:

Each gold mine produces 21,000,000 coins over 210,000*64 blocks, or
1.5625 BTC/block evenly distributed. Measured as an absolute against the
monetary the inflation rate will converge towards zero; measured against
the actual economic monetary supply the value will converge towards some
low value of inflation. In the short run we get an immediate reduction
in inflation, which can help our currently sluggish price. Either
outcome should be acceptable to any reasonable goldbug - fortunately our
community is almost entirely made up of such calm and reasonable people.
Meanwhile maintaining a miner reward has significant advantages in terms
of the long-term sustainability of the system - everyone needs PoW
security regardless of whether or not you do transactions, thus we
should all pay into it.

As for your example of Python, I'm sure they'll accept a pull-req
changing the behavior in the language.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
f4f5ba334791a4102917e4d3f22f6ad7f2c4f15d97307fe2


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
 The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

 What's interesting about this bug is we could also fix the problem - the
 economic shock - by first implementing the OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode
 in a soft-fork, followed by a second soft-fork requiring miners to
 pay-forward a percentage of their coinbase outputs to the future.
 (remember that whomever mines a block controls what
 recently-made-available anyone-can-spend txouts are included in their
 block) We could then pick the distribution rate fairly arbitrarily; I
 propose the following linear distribution:

Interesting idea, but perhaps we can keep that change for a future
hard fork, as Matt suggested? That means it could be implemented much
more concisely too.

Mike, I'm sad to hear you feel that way. I'll move your name in the
document from ACKnowledgements to NAKnowledgements.

As this is a relatively urgent matter - we risk forks within 250 years
otherwise, I'd like to move this forward quickly.

In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who
disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any
number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite.

-- 
Pieter

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
 The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 
 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.

Thanks - fixed!

-- 
Pieter

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Jorge Timón
On 4/1/14, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.me wrote:
 Also, should we really do this with a soft fork when we can take this
 opportunity to redesign the whole system with a hard fork? This is out
 chance to switch to a whole new script engine!

+1
The hard fork also forces the whole community and not a few miners to decide.
Well, if it is possible for the community to reach an agreement with
such a short time frame...

 Matt

 On April 1, 2014 3:00:07 PM EDT, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
 wrote:
Hi all,

I understand this is a controversial proposal, but bear with me please.

I believe we cannot accept the current subsidy schedule anymore, so I
wrote a small draft BIP with a proposal to turn Bitcoin into a
limited-supply currency. Dogecoin has already shown how easy such
changes are, so I consider this a worthwhile idea to be explored.

The text can be found here: https://gist.github.com/sipa/9920696

Please comment!

Thanks,

--
Pieter

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development



-- 
Jorge Timón

http://freico.in/

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
 In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who
 disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any
 number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite.

With ten people commenting on this proposal there are quite a few ways
in which you could partition their views. Only one possible integer
partitioning has everyone in the same partition, so consensus seems
unlikely.

But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
proposal.

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Daryl Banttari
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:

 But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
 other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
 proposal.


What about BIP 420?  Everyone knows if you add zero it's still the same
number.
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Matt Corallo
I move to reclaim bip 42 as reserved for a bip containing either a reference to 
musical dolphins or towels in the name.

Matt

On April 1, 2014 5:47:34 PM EDT, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
 In case there are no further objections (excluding from people who
 disagree with me), I'd like to request a BIP number for this. Any
 number is fine, I guess, as long as it's finite.

With ten people commenting on this proposal there are quite a few ways
in which you could partition their views. Only one possible integer
partitioning has everyone in the same partition, so consensus seems
unlikely.

But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
proposal.

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Jeff Garzik
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Daryl Banttari dbantt...@gmail.com wrote:
 What about BIP 420?  Everyone knows if you add zero it's still the same
 number.

Similarly, everyone knows if you multiply both sides by zero, the
result is always a true statement.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.  https://bitpay.com/

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin

2014-04-01 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
 But owing to a rather large bribe (or at least not less large than any
 other offered by competing parties) I hereby assign BIP 42 for this
 proposal.

Submitted as BIP 42
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki)
through PR #42 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/42).

Thanks!

--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development