Move black holes to future additions #242
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -1072,6 +1071,10 @@ When an escrow fund is unhealthy, lowering the aggression factor makes the escro | |||
| Escrow funds should generally be tuned to act slowly. This will allow arbitrage traders to do the heavy lifting, as the knowledge that the escrow fund will eventually get the price back to the target makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy when traders act on that knowledge. If the escrow fund acts too quickly, it loses money when the bitcoin version of a security leads the real-world version, as would happen if someone was engaging in insider trading anonymously using the bitcoin version. | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| ### Black holes approach to versioning | |||
| All Master Protocol implementations are expected to keep pace with changes of this nature, but in the event one falls behind, it must treat addresses which broadcast messages using version numbers it does not recognize as "black holes". That is, any funds or properties which enter the control of that address are considered lost and unspendable, since that address is using a newer version of the Master Protocol. In the event that the out-dated implementation is upgraded to recognize the new message formats, the blockchain can be re-parsed, and nothing will be lost. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, if you just wanted to move the block with a slightly different wording or if this is a proposal for a solution. If it's the later: this still results in a global blackout.
- You don't know what you don't know. Basically this includes any transaction that is not a valid Mastercoin transaction.
- Unrelated to the first issue: hiding incoming tokens is not sufficient. The prime example here is DEx activity. Say there is a sell intent transaction which your wallet identifies correctly, but a higher versioned accept/buy transaction which it doesn't identify. The buyer's purchase is zero'd anyway, given the higher versiond transaction, but what about the seller? Maybe the whole amount was bought, maybe not. Thus you'd need to blackout the seller, too.
|
Hi, in an attempt to clean up the current specification, I'm going to close old and outstanding pull requests. Please note, it's tagged as "old idea", so the work is not wasted and we can potentially review it at some point later. Please feel free to resubmit it as new pull request, if you still think it's a good idea. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.