Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1UistJ-0002RT-8e
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:59:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.93 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.93; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148093.authsmtp.net; 
Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.93])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1UistF-0004T7-Ld for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:59:09 +0000
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
	by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r51KwwJV085710;
	Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:58:58 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
	(authenticated bits=128)
	by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r51KwrTQ086410
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
	Sat, 1 Jun 2013 21:58:56 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:58:53 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20130601205853.GA24956@savin>
References: <20130601193036.GA13873@savin> <201306012034.31543.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201306012034.31543.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 1344e639-cafe-11e2-b10b-0025903375e2
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
	http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
	aAdMdgMUEkAaAgsB AmUbWVVeVVV7XGU7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
	WVdMSlVNFUsqBB16 QVx6Mxl6cQFHeDB4 YkFgEHFYWEAvc0V0
	Xx0FQzgbZGY1an1N UUAKagNUcgZDfhxG bVUqVj1vNG8XDQg5
	AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCX4RGSY7 XBkGT300GkMZAis0
	NR9uNllUGU8SPyd6 OF0wXlQVdhQbDEhF B0xLDGdeOkUZWjYw
	RR5cRlYTFjFUSyNR ShMvOFcRWmQaUC5f D0heIwgA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1019:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
	anti-virus system.
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 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UistF-0004T7-Ld
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:59:09 -0000


--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 08:34:29PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, June 01, 2013 7:30:36 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> > scriptPubKey: <data> OP_TRUE
> >=20
> > ...
> > Along with that change anyone-can-spend outputs should be make IsStanda=
rd()
> > so they will be relayed.
>=20
> Data does not belong in the blockchain. People running nodes have all=20
> implicitly agreed to store the blocks for financial purposes, and storing=
 data=20
> is a violation of that social contract. Proof-of-stake may be arguably=20
> financial, but I'm sure there must be a way to do it without spamming peo=
ple=20
> against their consent.

We have no way of preventing this, so ensure it's done in a way that
minimizes harm. For instance, my zookeyv key-value consensus system can
be implemented using transactions with txout pairs of the following
form:

Let H(d) =3D RIPEMD160(SHA256(d))

txout_k*2  : OP_DUP H(key) OP_EQUALVERIFY
txout_k*2+1: OP_DUP H(value) OP_EQUALVERIFY

With an additional rule to allow for references to previous sacrifices
with txouts of the form:

txout_n: OP_DUP H(txid:vout) OP_EQUALVERIFY

This is perfectly compatible with Gregory Maxwell's address pre-image
fix to data-in-chain storage, and at the same time is completely
unblockable by making such transactions more expensive - the whole point
is to prove you've sacrificed funds.

Yet another reason why increasing the blocksize is madness.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000018235c41836eb88ea45343c746a3704c5a155bb90c7d2d9a48

--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRqmCMAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7HKMH/RDdOKkwu/sSd8cqYyGPjdQ2
kTWLsfDyj2FNC3VENYok7ufeFuSVu4bh2zCsZRmHntsmNyZSlnysbAmfofE3HqKV
kCeDBKBmjSA7aLxN95iLmSpVgZ40CiDRS8KYHcwyY0pd50kV5KxDT0mGKHKObFQy
hfUo3tk3Lnp0p5JeF+x+N3O2HwmcLaw40v1gQn0YvAibMygtl5XslH9z87KnqJDQ
NgLh+xqWjzZTTo5LcDaxX5x0xC3JLP0fXLiA3s6Iq/RCDHGF3HnRAsdVjPey83jm
vnZLve4mrH1cbdnd/AeOjeGC9YC7+h1USqAhmMtQXu1yzbtNrGmG3+HKG+J919c=
=mhdn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--