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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1UjsT2-0004io-8U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:44:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.181; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UjsT0-0006K6-G1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:44:08 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u11so182070qcx.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=Y+rxAzy7hgCFMUDFge7lTFD5tsc94rr02Y+d2nHAovE=;
b=cTXoOkxONdSBewijyrBroy5tAlhXrMKOW/vY98Ev9EKVVr0QgrtZlVrrlW8kTAaZi0
Rmfbbdmchf9f3VO/0UwhfBQiK9JRMeThbIGdEk2EwMmjMcR/3BshdhbZd3cGhNHVGXMe
8h9nR199SdFuqutMbMMWNH2KjeX9j/XB/H7lQxIczRD6cxnxArcYG68PQ2uWiSfSsPg8
h3ImruvsaMIzEjKkxNHzdoBcSpuzD96i+gba0nsTocuFhHkmoBAsjpHS90DYHs44cwvU
Ds4Kx9KWFHJ/i7y4fC1XrKQIl+VSYb92/fi7gS3WTX/oAdQb94VlCJZJrztYA1saFxkU
js7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.196.135 with SMTP id eg7mr2132246qcb.96.1370355164908;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.2.102 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin>
<20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:12:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0P2qARDGk45Cs0jThp14J+YVvxRGE=wZMhO1XMemP-cWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCgsDE2B94lC+dgAPBqu7Lszm4fiUZYV5F3nw27tbUX25uvcVYOBW5/Q4/tItJGaesgz5a
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1UjsT0-0006K6-G1
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 14:44:08 -0000
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> d) some new standardized spend to fees (only miners can claim).
> so if I understand what you proposed d) seems like a useful concept if that
> is not currently possible. eg alternatively could we not just propose a
> standard recognized address that clearly no-one knows the EC discrete log
> of?
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.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
