{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christophe Biocca \u003c\nchristophe.biocca at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e 1. This provides a very strong incentive to always vote for\n\u003e reallocating a block if it isn't yours\n\n\nIf everyone votes to reallocate everyone elses blocks all the time, then\nyou'd end up losing your own coins too, so this doesn't seem like a\nworkable strategy.\n\n\n\u003e     a) Requiring supermajorities\n\u003e     c) Burning, rather than reallocating, the coins. Miners' immediate\n\u003e incentive to attack honest pools is much reduced.\n\u003e\n\nI'm OK with burning actually. The total amount of coins in the system\nessentially defines its maximum price resolution. Ideally we'd not lose\nresolution, but it's less important than having a system that does actually\nwork. Moreover, this sort of system is like double spending defence itself\n- if it does work, it doesn't need to actually be done very frequently\nbecause people know the safeguards work and don't try. So in practice total\nloss of resolution should be limited.\n\n\n\u003e 2. BitUndo gets paid using additional txouts in the double-spend\n\u003e transaction, no by miner's fees.\n\n\nRight. It's indeed an assumption that block rewards matter to miners, even\nthe ones that have double spend revenues.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/53570a01/attachment.html\u003e"}