SIP-0002 discussion

[Semisol]

See: https://github.com/derekross/stackchain/blob/main/sips/sip-0002.txt
Proposer: @Semisol
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Semisol_Public/status/1549872722368397312

[derekross]

I like how you included NEWSTACK just in case we get SIP-0001 approved @Semisol

[DanjaminDW]

Additional Stackpool should be replied to underneath the original Stackpool claim. When enough funds are had to create the next block the last Stackpool combines all previous amounts in one tweet under the highest stack height.

If a new stack height is created during a Stackpool process users should resubmit their stack underneath the new highest Stack.

Also I believe Stackjoin is a better term than Stackpool.

[Semisol]

Was thinking Stackjoin would be the merging operation -- say you had an orphaned Stack and wanted to place it on tip. As long as the orphaned Stack is not on an active fork you can Stackjoin it with another purchase

[DanjaminDW]

This would help with not needing to resubmit your stack but how does one know if a stack was previously used or not?

[Semisol]

This would help with not needing to resubmit your stack but how does one know if a stack was previously used or not?

Comparing images, and partly trust.
If we want to eliminate trust, we may want to link to the orphaned tweet and the merged purchase to make the Stackjoin

[DanjaminDW]

I can see that working. There's enough people to respond to the Stackjoin to validate there wasn't a 'double spend'.

[derekross]

Agree, we have enough validators watching that thread. Anyone on the thread would be able to respond and prevent a double spend.

[Semisol]

This proposal has been superseded by SIP-0003