[Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of burn on parent chain

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Fri Feb 6 01:34:31 UTC 2015

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> Hi there,
> comments in-line:
> >> I later wrote up the idea in the context of adding Zerocoin to
> >> Bitcoin:
> >>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02472.html
> >>
> For the sake of maximum clarity with respect to modelling the value of
> a Bitcoin, I don't think that approaches which change the number
> of coins that can possibly be circulated should be encouraged.
> So, I like the idea of having the "sacrificed" coins appearing in the
> mining fees in a future block. But what is meant with OP_DEPTH in this
> context? From what I read, this operation just manipulates the stack
> size when evaluating the script, so I don't see how it would
> affect miner incentives.

Oh, where I was saying OP_DEPTH, I was referring to a *hypothetical*
opcode; I'd forgotten when I wrote that post that OP_DEPTH is an real

These days I'd suggest you use the (upcoming on BTC/live on Viacoin)
OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY opcode instead. Pretty simple really:

    <current blockheight + 1 year worth of blocks> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150205/415940f5/attachment.sig>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list