Published on: 2013-05-14T20:07:31+00:00
In a conversation between Jeff Garzik and Adam in May 2013, they discuss different methods of rewarding miners for their work in verifying transactions and adding blocks to the blockchain. Jeff mentions that if a promised transaction to the miner is not an integral part of the reward transaction, the user may choose to withhold it, which is not ideal. He suggests proof that they directly mined a block with a coinbase that immediately makes payment to future miners as a better method. This has several advantages, including not creating new traffic for the bitcoin network, easy verification on the blockchain, and the ability to be bound to a service if micro-mined on the spot. Jeff believes that ideally, one should simultaneously mine and give a reward to future block miners.The idea of creating an anonymous identity using a decentralized approach is discussed as a solution to the problem of not being able to create Google accounts via Tor without a phone number. The concept involves a server generating transactions with pubkeys owned by private keys to prove ownership of the passport/fidelity bond. This could be used on platforms like MediaWiki, Wordpress, or phpBB to prevent spam and abuse.Jeff explains that the miner's reward for processing transactions is the sum of all per-transaction fees and the initial currency distribution of 25 BTC. The remainder of a transaction when input value exceeds output value becomes the transaction fee, which is paid to the miner. However, the protocol prevents zero-output, give-it-all-to-the-miner transactions. Adam suggests changing the output sum > 0BTC limitation to >= to allow for closer approximation of give-to-miner transactions.The possibility of a pool locking the reward instead of receiving or destroying it is mentioned. Gregory Maxwell's idea of using a Merkle Sum tree to split one sacrifice among many users is discussed. The responder also suggests committing the sacrifice to a pubkey and making signatures to say what the new balance is for each message. Trusting nodes to give accurate balances is considered adequate for DoS protection.In an email exchange between Adam Back and Jeff Garzik, the topic of destroy-via-miner-fee is discussed. A destroy-by-miner fee transaction is a normal bitcoin transaction sent by any user, where the remainder becomes the transaction fee if input value exceeds output value. The miner's reward is the initial currency distribution of 25 BTC plus the sum of all per-transaction fees. However, the protocol prevents zero-output, give-it-all-to-the-miner transactions.Peter's proof-of-sacrifice, which uses time-stamped difficulty coordinated inflation control, is discussed as an alternative method of destroying Bitcoin. It is mentioned that values are too low to spam the blockchain, making them payable to the identity of the recipient. Different ideas are presented, such as amortizable hashcash under-contribution and using a merkle root instead of a public key hash in the reward recipient address field. The creation cost of an anonymous identity called SIN is also discussed, where a specified amount of bitcoins is burned via miner fee to create a SIN. This provides a positive feedback loop for miners who receive fees via such services.Merge-mining and its benefits are discussed, including Peter's coinbase hashcash protocol. The email thread introduces three options for destroying bitcoin: merged-mine, destroy-via-miner-fee, and anyone-can-spend. It also mentions the possibility of creating an anonymous identity called SIN, associated with a bitcoin transaction's miner fee.Adam Back has a discussion with Peter about a new proposal that is not merge-mining. Peter's coinbase hashcash protocol ensures that mining the hashcash costs the miner at least some well-defined amount. Peter's ideas include using blockchain headers over DNS or a twitter system to combat spam and create merged stamps. The widely distributed blockchain header data can be used as an anti-spam measure. The discussion also touches on Rivest's PayWord as a mechanism for low-value micro-payments and making DoS attacks expensive enough to be impractical. PowPay is introduced as a method providing greater scalability than Bitcoin but with limitations in actual fund transfers per second.In May 2013, an email conversation between John Dillon and Peter Todd discusses merge-mining and its protocol. It mentions three options for miners: merged-mine, destroy bitcoin, or anyone-can-spend. Publicly auditable pooled mining protocols are suggested as a starting point for respendable micropayments. The use of blockchain header data in naming systems is also mentioned.Overall, the context provides insights into different methods of rewarding miners, creating anonymous identities, destroying bitcoin, merge-mining, and exploring alternative solutions to combat spam and enable micro-payments.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T04:52:16.579543+00:00