From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UcLVf-0007rF-Tu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 May 2013 20:07:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.180; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; helo=mail-ea0-f180.google.com; Received: from mail-ea0-f180.google.com ([209.85.215.180]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UcLVf-0005LZ-5i for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 May 2013 20:07:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id g10so572726eak.39 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash; bh=60qUmJ2I0LnuvZvEV8X5dllhd8FPgxuPbVtH6n//YH8=; b=HIvS4jr5fjz8Vvwdq8P5RrPI86V5u9adnvTxDdef2G6mtTPX5hhu2BUE5WhOA+9Neu Sv4afQomnQaakNFQxj2dRjY3w+vuB4eGiLfWu6r0zZgvwtE8UQsDlbK7TfuBES4qjDs1 fo56wEuxJWXHFZAYt0OK1Y0LNOZzUnEvg8FDyq2V24e6TZwGOU1W2He8trvvvpe2R0xp 7ay1JWwAY1JDYWROxqMaY3Z5wJq4w3RnMwNHfKlVDnsA3sjLhYJ4MO/cqoDaT3aZEUT4 BRQJMzm3GBzNIoRrRcQqUq27i2od7aeAmUypDzyns1te21kPch7e6hXs1kbb5dBml8fH uqwQ== X-Received: by 10.14.211.69 with SMTP id v45mr21176594eeo.45.1368562056744; Tue, 14 May 2013 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x41sm31546191eey.17.2013.05.14.13.07.34 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 May 2013 13:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 353282E05AB; Tue, 14 May 2013 22:07:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Tue, 14 May 2013 22:07:31 +0200 Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:07:31 +0200 From: Adam Back To: Jeff Garzik Message-ID: <20130514200731.GA24809@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20130511045342.GA28588@petertodd.org> <20130511102209.GA27823@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130513105408.GB3393@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130513211244.GA9550@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130514092507.GA21160@netbook.cypherspace.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Hashcash: 1:20:130514:jgarzik@exmulti.com::3/ZuqDpLaQwLPo03:000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001bZz X-Hashcash: 1:20:130514:john.dillon892@googlemail.com::NxXBMrdGRyIGQcG/:00000000 0000000000000000000000002yCG X-Hashcash: 1:20:130514:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::KCxYlclnAGnuq 6+K:000000000000000000002Y7p X-Hashcash: 1:20:130514:adam@cypherspace.org::G4FhSq3pG/QDfeCB:00000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001G8D X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (adam.back[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1UcLVf-0005LZ-5i Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] merged mining hashcash & bitcoin (Re: Coinbase TxOut Hashcash) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:07:44 -0000 On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:50:27PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Well if it is a later transaction, not an integral part of the reward >> transaction (that is definitionally mined by being serialized into the >> coinbase), the user may elect to withhold the promised transaction >> give-to-miner, so thats not so good. [...] >[...] >Just referring to a standard, fee-bearing, user-created bitcoin >transaction, where output_value < input_value. The fee is paid to the >first miner who includes that transaction in a block, as part of the >protocol. Yes but thats inferior in the sense that it is spamming the bitcoin payment protocol slightly, to the small reward of miners, and involves actual money and traceability to real-name (where did you get the coin from to spend). If alternatively you just proof you direct mined on a block with a coinbase that immediately makes payment to future miners its better because: a) you can do that with no new traffic for the bitcoin network (except when you mine a whole block, you'll post it); and b) anyone with a reasonable verification on the blockchain head (even if the spender has to give it to them!) can verify it without any other network traffic; and c) if its micro-mined on the spot it can be bound to the service whereas if you give it to fees as an on network transaction you are limited to values above the min tx fee. So idealy I think you need to be able to simultanously mine and give reward to future block miners. What you could do with out that is d) mine for the reward of bitcoin foundation/software author/or service provider. In the last case (service provider) its an extreme form of Rivests peppercoin probabilistic payment Adam