{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-06-04\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e d) some new standardized spend to fees (only miners can claim).\n\n\u003e so if I understand what you proposed d) seems like a useful concept if that\n\u003e is not currently possible.  eg alternatively could we not just propose a\n\u003e standard recognized address that clearly no-one knows the EC discrete log\n\u003e of?\n\nI'm one of the people experimenting in this area.  I've long argued\nthat a zero-output transaction should be permitted -- 100% miner fee\n-- as an elegant proof of sacrifice.  Unfortunately that requires a\nhard fork.  Also, for most people, it seems likely that a change\ntransaction would be generated.  That, then, would generate an\nalready-standard transaction, where inputs \u003e outputs.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nSenior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/"}