From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UnvDD-0004yb-05 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:28:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 74.125.83.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.43; envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com; helo=mail-ee0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UnvDB-0000fT-JU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:28:30 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so965591eei.30 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.15.94.131 with SMTP id bb3mr9061799eeb.20.1371320903239; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.12.141 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130610174306.GA16549@petertodd.org> References: <51B602D8.5030706@monetize.io> <51B60BF1.3020701@gmail.com> <20130610174306.GA16549@petertodd.org> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:28:23 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Dillon To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UnvDB-0000fT-JU Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Vote on the blocksize limit with proof-of-stake voting 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: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:28:31 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote: >> to sign votes. Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their >> public key, which while isn't technically so terrible, large amounts of >> money intended to be kept in storage for 10+ years will prefer to avoid >> any exposure at all, in the oft-chance that QCs come around a lot >> earlier than we expected. Sure, the actual risk should be pretty much >> non-existent, but some of the most paranoid folks are probably the same >> ones who have a lot of funds and want 100.00% of the security that is >> possible. They will see this as wildly inconvenient. > > Solving that problem is pretty easy actually: just add a voting only > public key to your outputs. Specifically you would have an opcode called > something like "OP_VOTE" and put a code-path in your script that only > executes for that specific key. Rather than "OP_VOTE" all you really need is the "spending tx matches a template" functionality that has been proposed for many other things. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRvLIoAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPdtoIAKOeEwtWXw6fNKbSN0miGmcQ rHxgoEh5EAPsbs0hkCRpsVF7OjvmAftOn0Z0K0X/a4UFVHI64bvvGUg0brmAMnh3 ha4Mu/o7UwxwVJmmd6vpUw4smjbQrKbRzheXXQKUsDG2HOmRzMabFjJG1F20mPdg RobwYG49fKLcjAfqqTjOwSQE5KBjrugAUo32OUJWHZyNR5E3JYUXRHseHCfQ+1Fd VOQ8rWA4OaqwiX7PXdrNMWXc7Ab1dK7j9U7n4FgzCGIJjAek2dGbYLdrjftGKI+z Vje7o/RCJFLkJW5cC/wDoB/58XyJuvsvGOBAjvz01UrengUiapkhLRjKQwbveEo= =P0Hm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----