Adam Back [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-05-14 📝 Original message:On Mon, May 13, 2013 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-05-14
📝 Original message:On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 06:00:27PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>When a transaction's input value exceeds its output value, the
>remainder is the transaction fee. The miner's reward for processing
>transactions is the 25 BTC initial currency distribution + the sum of
>all per-transaction fees. A destroy-by-miner fee transaction is a
>normal bitcoin transaction sent by any user, that might look like
>
>Input 1: 1.0 BTC
>Output 1: 0.5 BTC
>
>(the miner fee is implicitly 0.5 BTC, paid to whomever mines the
>transaction into a block)
>
>Sadly the bitcoin protocol prevents zero-output,
>give-it-all-to-the-miner transactions.

Well if it is a later transaction, not an integral part of the reward
transaction (that is definitionally mined by being serialized into the
coinbase), the user may elect to withhold the promised transaction
give-to-miner, so thats not so good.

Or do you mean to say you could have (implicit reward 25BTC) and reward
transaction .001 BTC to self and 24.999 BTC with existing bitcoin format and
validation semantics? That would be close enough to give-to-miner. Also
the output sum > 0BTC limitation could be changed to >= maybe... (just one
well placed character :)

Adam