Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-06-04 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-06-04
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Adam Back <adam at 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/
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Adam Back <adam at 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/