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
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1UjvG7-0001mC-U3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:42:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.174; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UjvG7-0003gS-2s
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:42:59 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id m16so325679qcq.19
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:42:53 -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=6JyKCT/pjuDiqrk5GgcgKbjvar6SuICrrq2f1JfosHw=;
b=i+fxKnmxzAVxNUSknTikpkqJAM4qmeXZFAFe68K+hHdy1aYXAVuaiZz2/oKWAL/Hok
ThcMTOhiIFG8+N0Mj58GB1A0NWu7xsaclcjAMj27dkbT0jvZZctKhhABkRzeEX5vu09E
XC4Bqy4cfEl8E633BhDsBDoBV1HZ1LlDn059nawBJKkeWlwF7++GGjR6JHtJrEIXN06h
pequIvaQo9NjVuSCb1CExzJS1VHfVpyDhXDtREY9MJXXhgHgH2XAR7/083lY/fZ/Rtlr
GI1uOXzgmbbMAL9jctXdcrHM2+lqI6Za8BXy/fgf0ZrflQgVfsWEEatRgnQILpo8dGsf
wRlg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.86.103 with SMTP id o7mr27738830qez.8.1370367773547; Tue,
04 Jun 2013 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.2.102 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UUJ+Qu2ejXO6YYOzzDW0jPUpCPAmcw4j30niaT2e7+=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin>
<20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<CAJHLa0P2qARDGk45Cs0jThp14J+YVvxRGE=wZMhO1XMemP-cWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPaL=UUJ+Qu2ejXO6YYOzzDW0jPUpCPAmcw4j30niaT2e7+=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:42:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0PRNxS7K3YeCx_eXkZQdO8vOCefuGyXMXD7ESq0QEhr+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3wZTzJ/xiPHMjjFxMu4LHuIGs5SECHl7tdo9LJMkNtsar00AbMz4wnaUCCHSgWey6sMYJ
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: 1UjvG7-0003gS-2s
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 17:43:00 -0000
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM, John Dillon
<john.dillon892@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Absolutely. It wholly depends on the security model, and
economic-incentives model. Some use models simply don't care if the
miner created a transaction that gave the fee to themselves. It might
even be /encouraged/ to do this! Sure they are paying themselves, but
given bitcoin network difficulty is so high, simply obtaining
payments-go-myself-as-miner transactions is itself difficult.
Producing an identity (my goal) or whatever is just fine, and in such
case becomes simply an additional block reward -- an additional
incentive to buy into this identity creation/management system.
Or exchange "identity" with another token, for another data service of
your choice.
This is no longer a strict "proof of sacrifice" system, if such
behavior is encouraged, but it is nonetheless valid.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
