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 ) 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 ; 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: References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin> <20130602214553.GA11528@netbook.cypherspace.org> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:42:53 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: John Dillon 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:43:00 -0000 On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM, John Dillon 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/