The complains I could imagine about this, (apart from being a very specific use case) are the same complains I heard about op_expiry. Namely, that in a reorg, the same tx, having been valid in a given block could potentially become invalid in some other block mining it. I guess in this case the situation is less likely in this case than with op_expiry, but it is still possible. Another complain I could imagine is this kind of forces the implementation to break some existing encapsulations, but I guess those are just implementation details not that relevant here. I personally don't have strong feelings towards this proposal one way or the other, I'm just imagining what other people may complain about.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 PM Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Difficulty change has profound impact on miner’s production thereby introduce > the biggest risk while considering an investment. > Commodity markets offer futures and options to hedge risks on traditional > trading venues. Some might soon list difficulty futures. > > I think we could do much better than them natively within Bitcoin. > > A better solution could be a transaction that uses nLocktime denominated in > block height, such that it is valid after the difficulty adjusted block in > the future. > A new OP_DIFFICULTY opcode would put onto stack the value of difficulty for > the block the transaction is included into. > The output script may then decide comparing that value with a strike which > key can spend it. > The input of the transaction would be a multi-sig escrow of those who entered > the bet. > The winner would broadcast. > > Once signed by both the transaction would not carry any counterparty risk and > would not need an oracle to settle according to the bet. > > I plan to draft a BIP for this as I think this opcode would serve significant > economic interest of Bitcoin economy, and is compatible with Bitcoin’s aim > not to introduce 3rd party to do so. > > Do you see a fault in this proposal or want to contribute? > > Tamas Blummer > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
