Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-10-01 📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-10-01
📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141001/05ee5140/attachment.html>;