MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54A1C8CF.50907@monetas.net>
References: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
	<CANEZrP0zVTVdDWZCUk9wvcuAjBi4Eq+a8SQP4-R5aKrxDw_xMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C8CF.50907@monetas.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:47:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo4XFvcYhwhiTu3L8Hf6dQMohSk5GE2dg8wQWky1iuS1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus.ranvier@monetas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds
Precedence: list

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Justus Ranvier
<justus.ranvier@monetas.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/29/2014 09:10 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> How does adding inputs to a coinbase differ from just having
>> pay-to-fee transactions in the block?
>
> If a miner includes pay-to-fee transactions in a block, those fees
> could be claimed by another miner in the case the first miner's block
> is orphaned.
>
> Inputs to a generation transaction can not be similarly poached.
>
> That difference makes some services possible that would can not be
> safely achieved with pay-to-fee transactions.

What services?
I must be missing something obvious about the motivation.
I understand the difference between "paying to myself only when I mine
the next block" and "offering fees to whoever mines this tx".
But how does allowing miners to pay to themselves in this way help
with security and future lower subsidies at all?