rich1.0npub15z6e9t07ugx267aj3s3c487pln852ydytzlgu0vkkqxfznyvx4jq4kn0zrhttps://nostr.ae/npub15z6e9t07ugx267aj3s3c487pln852ydytzlgu0vkkqxfznyvx4jq4kn0zrnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-06-04 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > 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. 100% miner fee is not a proof of anything because the miner could have created that transaction for themselves. You must have proof that all miners had an equal opportunity at collecting the fee, and the only way to do that is by Peter's announce-commit protocol, or his unspendable until after n blocks proposal. Also the idea of a zero-output transaction is silly. In almost all cases you are making the sarifice to link that act to an identity, and linking that act to arbitrary data is far more flexible than any scheme relying on the pubkeys that paid for the transaction. With a arbitrary data you can slice up the sacrifice for instance with a merkle-sum-tree, as well as hide what the sacrifice was for to preserve anonymity. The extra cost in size of the provably unspendable OP_RETURN scriptPubKey is minimal for the rare time when it isn't required. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRrf/BAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiP7+MH/RGfo2k+Zd0VoGzv3KSTzBrM auK9Do2fYp2YvMnT/JFYbz2MgbTcCiKGyZfxjaH+zrqdTFgkgAE53midIv/Rd5/w kjjifJuqw5AyIN6ANA1TuLQ64elPOXXymsaMqWO8ou0angG6DBI/LZZEG7SXM7+I Jwk3MXLhFswvvuRif4G2C9v29WqSj4XRxxl3o63ziSYvZPPCHLYHAL9BJaMpDhaw LxebM088RofzJAoGL1QIeQhDS3aAK4jKSZtJ/6+fwYZQB2Qc3sa1v9IAcCQHE+M3 6oQY0tzEEFg9+xdnSM7J6pW7qW28nFS8Fdr6UkUUlwhI5c4KnIKCtQa3o1mYDFE= =SHWS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----