Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.170; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f170.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <542C6C61.30301@gmail.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
	<201410011823.56441.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABsx9T1xC_1GzquEKBH3TQscZoo3EjXyQFR3FF6BXufjduL_JA@mail.gmail.com>
	<542C6C61.30301@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:34:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1Wh1ypQ-RCkAh+1qEw7QvBnuPja1teJ6xq9F_gQHAGOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b606f0f586e050463449a
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent
 a txout from being spent until an expiration time
Precedence: list

--20cf301b606f0f586e050463449a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > If the first transaction is P2SH, then the miner won't know there is
> > an advantage to holding it until it is too late (the scriptPubKey is
> > an opaque hash until the second transaction is final and
> > relayed/broadcast).
>
> If you're doing some kind of proof-of-burn scheme, wouldn't using P2SH
> defeat the purpose of it?
>

No, the burner would supply the funding transaction plus the redeeming
script as the proof-of-burn to whoever needed the proof.

Only after at least one confirmation, if there was some risk that revealing
the redeeming script would make miners refuse to mine that first
transaction because they want to get it plus the CHECKTIMELOCKVERIFY "burn"
transaction.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--20cf301b606f0f586e050463449a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:etotheipi@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">etotheipi@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 10/01/2014=
 04:58 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:<br>
&gt; If the first transaction is P2SH, then the miner won&#39;t know there =
is<br>
&gt; an advantage to holding it until it is too late (the scriptPubKey is<b=
r>
&gt; an opaque hash until the second transaction is final and<br>
&gt; relayed/broadcast).<br>
<br>
</span>If you&#39;re doing some kind of proof-of-burn scheme, wouldn&#39;t =
using P2SH<br>
defeat the purpose of it?<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"></div></div></blockquote></div><div=
><br></div><div>No, the burner would supply the funding transaction plus th=
e redeeming script as the proof-of-burn to whoever needed the proof.</div><=
div><br></div><div>Only after at least one confirmation, if there was some =
risk that revealing the redeeming script would make miners refuse to mine t=
hat first transaction because they want to get it plus the CHECKTIMELOCKVER=
IFY &quot;burn&quot; transaction.</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin An=
dresen<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>

--20cf301b606f0f586e050463449a--