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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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
Precedence: list

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/