1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>) id 1UjseF-0003VM-IW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:55:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com
designates 209.85.215.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.181;
envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com;
helo=mail-ea0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-ea0-f181.google.com ([209.85.215.181])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UjseE-0003YG-PQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:55:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f181.google.com with SMTP id a11so286934eae.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.54.4 with SMTP id s4mr26936538eew.49.1370357736464; Tue,
04 Jun 2013 07:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.12.141 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0P2qARDGk45Cs0jThp14J+YVvxRGE=wZMhO1XMemP-cWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin>
<20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<CAJHLa0P2qARDGk45Cs0jThp14J+YVvxRGE=wZMhO1XMemP-cWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:55:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPaL=UUJ+Qu2ejXO6YYOzzDW0jPUpCPAmcw4j30niaT2e7+=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com)
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UjseE-0003YG-PQ
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make
anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:55:43 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
> I'm one of the people experimenting in this area. I've long argued
> that a zero-output transaction should be permitted -- 100% miner fee
> -- as an elegant proof of sacrifice. Unfortunately that requires a
> hard fork. Also, for most people, it seems likely that a change
> transaction would be generated. That, then, would generate an
> already-standard transaction, where inputs > outputs.
100% miner fee is not a proof of anything because the miner could have created
that transaction for themselves. You must have proof that all miners had an
equal opportunity at collecting the fee, and the only way to do that is by
Peter's announce-commit protocol, or his unspendable until after n blocks
proposal.
Also the idea of a zero-output transaction is silly. In almost all cases you
are making the sarifice to link that act to an identity, and linking that act
to arbitrary data is far more flexible than any scheme relying on the pubkeys
that paid for the transaction. With a arbitrary data you can slice up the
sacrifice for instance with a merkle-sum-tree, as well as hide what the
sacrifice was for to preserve anonymity. The extra cost in size of the provably
unspendable OP_RETURN scriptPubKey is minimal for the rare time when it isn't
required.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRrf/BAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiP7+MH/RGfo2k+Zd0VoGzv3KSTzBrM
auK9Do2fYp2YvMnT/JFYbz2MgbTcCiKGyZfxjaH+zrqdTFgkgAE53midIv/Rd5/w
kjjifJuqw5AyIN6ANA1TuLQ64elPOXXymsaMqWO8ou0angG6DBI/LZZEG7SXM7+I
Jwk3MXLhFswvvuRif4G2C9v29WqSj4XRxxl3o63ziSYvZPPCHLYHAL9BJaMpDhaw
LxebM088RofzJAoGL1QIeQhDS3aAK4jKSZtJ/6+fwYZQB2Qc3sa1v9IAcCQHE+M3
6oQY0tzEEFg9+xdnSM7J6pW7qW28nFS8Fdr6UkUUlwhI5c4KnIKCtQa3o1mYDFE=
=SHWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
