Topic: Pledging coins for ultimate blockchain compression - page 3. (Read 14786 times)

Great news!

1. Your donation was rescued from Booster.io, and now sits safely at this new bounty wallet I created: https://blockchain.info/address/16ofWVGwqDVjwhV95fDUrkyqT4Bcy1Nc6G
2. Booster.io will reduce their fee structure:


I will consider them for future bounties I start. I will manage this one myself, as agreed - please add this to the OP.

3. I match your 2.5 BTC.

Know what you're pledging for. The basis of etotheipi's proposal is not pruning itself, as that was already described by Satoshi in his paper.

It is about the ability to have a pruned node serve light clients with the same security guarantee as an SPV client (like BitcoinJ; trust the longest chain).

Implementing this consists several parts, and some of them are useful by themselves:

• Having fully validating nodes that explicitly maintain a pruned txout set
• ... and also keeps that set indexed per-address
• ... and maintain a merkle tree for that (or other authenticated data structure)
• ... and commit the merkle root of that in the coinbase (miners putting it there, other nodes verifying it)
• Having light nodes designed to use that information

(Alan, if you're reading this, please correct me if i'm wrong or missing something)

I'm currently myself working on the first step in the reference client. It will speed up block validation, and allow (optional) pruning of old blocks.

Ripper, you own the bounty right? Is it still open?

Also, what's with your signature "How much is 134 BTC in yen?"

+1

Fair enough. I hope it won't take 1 year to do this

The blockchain data is public, however, so if they touched the donations we'd notice. But we both digress...

It's not a question of wanting it or not ... I think that most businesses that hold lots of BTC today are doing it, whether they're telling their customers or not.

If you want, I can manage the fund (assuming I manage to get the 2.5 BTC back).
These conditions apply:

1. I will open a new blockchain.info account dedicated to this purpose.
2. I will use a fresh strong password that will be kept in my usual keepass keyfile and nowhere else (backed-up to dropbox).
3. I will not invest the funds in any interest-bearing vehicles, but simply store the keys to the blockchain.info wallet.
4. I will not be liable in any way if the wallet are hacked. A non-trivial amount of my own funds are sitting on blockchain.info, so I will lose a lot if my keepass file is hacked as well.
5. I might transfer the stewardship of the funds to another trusted forum member, given sufficient consensus is formed.
6. Refunds to incoming donations will only be made within 48 hours of depositing, and with hard proof of ownership of funds.
7. These are the conditions required to unlock the funds:


These conditions might be slightly refined in the future, if ample consensus exists (my discretion). The spirit of these conditions will not be changed - the bounty will only be given to someone who makes a solid proof of concept, and get significant miner support.

8. Project abandonment - if sufficient time has passed (> 1 year), and I deem the project is abandoned by its originators and there is no interest to develop it in the community, then funds will be donated to a Bitcoin related organization (e.g. developers of Bitcoin-qt, managers of bitcointalk.org, etc...). I will choose the organization/s, and will consult on this thread before doing so (but the final call will be mine).

Do you really want an organization that is supposed to be safeguarding your bounty loaning out the coins for interest? What if a deal they make goes bad?

Anyway, I have no problem with you managing it, ripper234, if you can get my 2.5BTC back. I'd do it myself, but I have a horse in this match

If they become hugely successful, they will make a decent live just from the interest alone.
(Booster.io and its twin site Propster.io).

5% is huge. Who do we nominate as the keeper of the bounty?

The fee is not a huge issue--they do provide a service that costs money to maintain. Although 5% is a little excessive.

Still, a blockchain.info wallet managed by someone with good reputation accomplishes the same feat with similar risk.

WTF???

This caught me completely by surprise.
Here is the complaint I just submitted on the Propster.me thread.

Except the 5% fee, I think the terms are rather clear - I submitted exact conditions for the bounty.
You may argue that some of the figures there are a arbitrary (15% merge mined). If anyone suggests better numbers perhaps we can revise. However, besides this point, I don't think there is an ambiguity in the bounty.

Still, due to the 5% fee, the above point is irrelevant. I won't be using Booster.io as long as this fee remains.

Thanks, but if we go this route, who owns the bounty and who decides if the feature is implemented to each of our likings?

Aso, looks like they take a 5% cut of the bounty.

I opened a booster.io bounty jar. Please add a link to the OP.

For the uber lazy, this is the condition to claim:

                                                           BTC ONE BTC

You can't simply hash all the blocks and forget about everything else because you need the unspend transactions. If you hash all the blocks you will get something like this:
aab4bab5af2a3deb2706954cffc89ad5cbed6dcc328d9e9daef3483cadbfa053
a simple plain hash. Now how do you know if Bob has bitcoins? And how do you know how much bitcoins Bob has? That's impossible to know if you only have that hash.

Pruning works more like that:
Let's say we have 3 people A, B and C

A sends 1 BTC to B and B sends that bitcoin to C. That means we have 2 transactions. But we can forget about the first one if we are pretty sure that there wont be a chain reorg because your client doesn't have to know if A sent 1BTC to B it only needs to know that C has 1BTC.

As a developer seriously considering implementing this, I would prefer someone unbiased (so not me, obviously) organize a blockchain.info donation wallet, or maybe booster.io (first I heard of it). That way I'd only have to collect from one person, and that person risks the ire of everyone who donated if he runs off with the money.

I haven't yet thought about what the tipping point will be, but if the total gets high enough I will do this.

I wonder if we could have a "superblock" every so often that is simply a hash of all the previous blocks. In essence you start out with a new genesis block and chain each time but old coins are still valid because they are in this "superblock".

I dont know if that makes sense...

Open a bounty on Booster.io

I'll pledge some coins.  Not sure how much.

Yes, I agree.

Come on people, your bitcoins are worth nothing if we can't prune the blockchain!

I have been thinking about an idea that is similar to this.

The concept is to have a max chain size that grows according to Moores Law, so that over time the max chain size gets larger.

When a chain reaches the max chain size a chain split occurs, the user is prompted if they wish to maintain both chains or just one of the the sub chains.

The chains exist at the leafs of the tree much in the same way as the proposal you mention.

Transactions occur in two steps, the output phase of the transaction and the input phase. This will facilitate inter-chain transaction.

Each client only receives input out output transaction for the chains they are maintaining.

Mining occurs at the the node junctions and all hashes must be mined to the root node to become a valid part of the tree.