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 1Ukfdl-0005sW-GF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:14:29 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Ukfdk-0003HJ-Ec for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:14:29 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B294727A2965; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:14:22 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: "Luke-Jr" Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:14:17 +0000 X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201306061914.20006.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Ukfdk-0003HJ-Ec Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: soft-fork to make anyone-can-spend outputs unspendable for 100 blocks 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: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:14:29 -0000 On Saturday, June 01, 2013 7:30:36 PM Peter Todd wrote: > scriptPubKey: OP_TRUE > > ... > Along with that change anyone-can-spend outputs should be make IsStandard() > so they will be relayed. Data does not belong in the blockchain. People running nodes have all implicitly agreed to store the blocks for financial purposes, and storing data is a violation of that social contract. Proof-of-stake may be arguably financial, but I'm sure there must be a way to do it without spamming people against their consent. > The alternative is sacrifices to unspendable outputs, which is very > undesirable compared to sending the money to miners to further > strengthen the security of the network. The alternative is to make other standard outputs unable to store data as well. Luke