Author: John Dillon 2013-06-04 14:55:36
Published on: 2013-06-04T14:55:36+00:00
The message is discussing the idea of a zero-output transaction as a proof of sacrifice. The writer argues that this should be allowed as a 100% miner fee, but acknowledges that it would require a hard fork. However, another commentator points out that a 100% miner fee doesn't prove anything since the miner could have simply created the transaction for themselves. To ensure all miners had an equal opportunity to collect the fee, Peter's announce-commit protocol or his unspendable until after n blocks proposal would need to be used. The commentator further argues that the idea of a zero-output transaction is "silly" since in most cases, the sacrifice is made to link that act to an identity. Therefore, linking the sacrifice to arbitrary data is more flexible than any scheme relying on the pubkeys that paid for the transaction. They suggest using arbitrary data to slice up the sacrifice with a merkle-sum-tree and 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.
Updated on: 2023-06-06T18:26:48.825407+00:00