MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”

[Tachikoma]

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Wow this is really sucky. Especially since my wallets push transactions directly to Eligius. This made me realise how centralised Bitcoin has become. The fact that somebody can just force this change on 15% of the network is a danger to Bitcoin.

[1714178648]

1714178648

[1714178648]

1714178648

[1714178648]

1714178648

[dillpicklechips]

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Wow this is really sucky. Especially since my wallets push transactions directly to Eligius. This made me realise how centralised Bitcoin has become. The fact that somebody can just force this change on 15% of the network is a danger to Bitcoin.

Eventually it will be a competition to get a confirmation once transactions explode. Addresses that are reused are unfortunately a possible low priority.

[BitThink]

It's better to begin setting a MSC mining pool now. MSC transactions will be given the highest priority and each miner believes in MSC can join this pool instead.

[Tachikoma]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

[ripper234]

I want to hear dacoinminster et al opinion on blacklists, redlists, whitelists etc
How does this may interact with Mastercoin platform?

TL;DR it for me?
You mean the possibility that Bitcoin miners will prefer not to process Mastercoin transactions?
The solution might be another chain and merged mining.

There's a $100 bounty on doing this analysis, we're considering increasing it to $300 or $500.

FYI we haven't decided on the formal criteria to accept this analysis and award the bounty.
I want someone with deep understanding of Bitcoin fundamentals.

Core developers or Meni Rosenfeld would have been great for this, but I don't know if they're interested in Mastercoin.
I asked Vitalik Buterin to look into it.

I want to hear dacoinminster et al opinion on blacklists, redlists, whitelists etc
How does this may interact with Mastercoin platform?

I just heard about this now and don't have the time to form an opinion.
However I trust Mike very much. If Gavin quit then Mike would be my choice for Lead Dev.
It's a good question how this interacts with Mastercoin if at all. See merged mining above.

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.

It's better to begin setting a MSC mining pool now. MSC transactions will be given the highest priority and each miner believes in MSC can join this pool instead.

Terrific and innovative idea!
I suggest that mining discussions be moved to a dedicated Mastercoin Mining thread.
Talk to us if you need help promoting the pool.

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

We can start by bribing miners with MSC in exchange for joining the pool.
Then they will have incentive for keeping MSC safe.
The bribe can start at some level and decrease at some rate until it's zero ... the pool should be self-sustainable by then.

[Tachikoma]

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.

Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled.

[ripper234]

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.

Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled.

Address reusing is sending from the same address.
I don't think that sending to an address multiple times can or will be throttled.

Well miners can blacklist Exodus specifically ... but that's a bit extreme and we are working on a migration plan if that happens.

[solex]

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.

Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled.

Address reusing is sending from the same address.
I don't think that sending to an address multiple times can or will be throttled.

Well miners can blacklist Exodus specifically ... but that's a bit extreme and we are working on a migration plan if that happens.

Presumably the exodus address was from a deterministic wallet. Could the subsequent addresses be generated and used instead?

[Tachikoma]

Would this effect both inputs and outputs to the address?  And I am correct in understanding this simply would make confirmations longer but not somehow land them in forever limbo?

What the patch Luke posted does impacts both inputs and outputs, but doesn't hurt the case where you do an unconfirmed spend of a fresh payment in the same block.  And yes, they'll still go through, just deprioritized (currently in the form of only allowing one use per block) so they'll take longer.

I read that to say that ouputs will be throttled as well.

What're your thinking about this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0

If address reusing is restricted by miners, what will happen to mastercoin?

Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.

Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled.

Address reusing is sending from the same address.
I don't think that sending to an address multiple times can or will be throttled.

Well miners can blacklist Exodus specifically ... but that's a bit extreme and we are working on a migration plan if that happens.

Presumably the exodus address was from a deterministic wallet. Could the subsequent addresses be generated and used instead?

I doubt that Exodus was generate from a deterministic wallet since it's a vanity address. However my suggestion would be to do exactly this. Increase the gap limit for a deterministic wallet based on the volume of the previous X-blocks. Much like Bitcoin's retargeting. I am just not sure how scaleable this would be in the long term. Need to do more research.

[vokain]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

[Tachikoma]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

Luckily we got calculators 

[BitThink]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

Oops, now I clearly feel the danger of BTC. Miners will only join the existing pools and new pool is almost impossible to survive now. Is it dangerous?

Maybe seems off topic, but MSC is based on BTC, so it is related. Maybe create an 'Exodus Address' also on LTC block chain?

[vokain]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

Luckily we got calculators  

It probably wouldn't break even, that I'm sure of.

I don't know how to calculate probability of x TH/s finding a block, and at what point P would no longer be statistically viable to find blocks while mining privately.

[BitThink]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

Luckily we got calculators  

In average, 5 days for 5TH now. Just divide 25 by the daily BTC mined, assuming no difficulty change.

[ripper234]

I don't think Mastercoin is big enough to find blocks. If we don't find blocks the whole process is meaningless.

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

Luckily we got calculators  

In average, 5 days for 5TH now. Just divide 25 by the daily BTC mined, assuming no difficulty change.

So no dedicated mining thread? 

What about p2pool?
Can we fork p2pool and launch our own MSC instance of that? Maybe our instance can cooperate with "The p2pool" if it won't be big enough?

How about a hierarchical structure for p2pools? Was this discussed anywhere?

[Tachikoma]

I don't think having our own pool would help enough. Even if we found find the incidental block that would probably be just as fast as the 1 transaction per block that the other pools are doing, if we assume everybody adopts Luke's patch. We would need to find a block every hour consistently if we find less then that Mastercoin would be a seriously slow protocol.

[BitThink]

I don't think having our own pool would help enough. Even if we found find the incidental block that would probably be just as fast as the 1 transaction per block that the other pools are doing, if we assume everybody adopts Luke's patch. We would need to find a block every hour consistently if we find less then that Mastercoin would be a seriously slow protocol.

Yes, good point. But if there are 144 transactions, we can finish them in one hour with our own pool, but without our own pool, they take one day. So with our own pool, at least we can ensure all transactions can be finished when we found a block, but without it the transactions will definitely take forever to finish as long as there are more than 1 transactions every 10 minutes.

[Tachikoma]

We would require around 500TH to find one block per hour. Not sure that's feasible.

[vokain]

We would require around 500TH to find one block per hour. Not sure that's feasible.

Not in the long run. Too expensive capital costs, probably won't ROI, so we couldn't  stay mining for long. The capital will not be replenished and we won't be able to buy nonobsolete miners/electricity.

[rafsoaken]

Forgive me if I am wrong but wouldn't a pool only reject these transactions if it can increase the expected value of its mining operation?
From what I understand, bigger blocks produce orphans more often, and thats why pools are under pressure to reduce blocksize while maximizing transaction fees.
Isn't it (leaving all other issues like blockchain size etc aside) just a question of calculating transaction fees to compensate for bigger blocksizes? Surely transaction fees also weigh in heavier each time the block reward (= an artificial subvention) is halved and the more is happening on the bitcoin network.