{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-07-11\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:36:52PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 04:35:02PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e What happens after that I'm not sure.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e Miners will learn to create anyone-can-spend outputs to bribe other miners\n\u003e \u003e to build on their block rather than reorg it.  (Due to the coinbase\n\u003e \u003e maturity, this will require some amount of floating capital.)\n\u003e \n\u003e ...and that's a disaster for mining centralization, because the smaller miners\n\u003e need to pay larger bribes than larger miners. Not to mention having to keep\n\u003e capital around to do it.\n\nAlso, note how from a practical point of view, we'll need to add a new type of\ntx that's only valid in a specific block, or other miners will just reorg those\nanyone-can-spend outputs to steal them. It's not all that trivial to actually\ndo that... you'd have to have a signature that commits to the non-segwit part\nof the coinbase outputs. Ugh.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220711/bc25b2ad/attachment.sig\u003e"}