š
Original date posted:2014-10-01
š Original message:On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > If the first transaction is P2SH, then the miner won't know there is
> > an advantage to holding it until it is too late (the scriptPubKey is
> > an opaque hash until the second transaction is final and
> > relayed/broadcast).
>
> If you're doing some kind of proof-of-burn scheme, wouldn't using P2SH
> defeat the purpose of it?
>
No, the burner would supply the funding transaction plus the redeeming
script as the proof-of-burn to whoever needed the proof.
Only after at least one confirmation, if there was some risk that revealing
the redeeming script would make miners refuse to mine that first
transaction because they want to get it plus the CHECKTIMELOCKVERIFY "burn"
transaction.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141001/05ee5140/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4ā¦d44kw
2023-06-07 15:26:06
in reply to nevent1qā¦36yq
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 15:26:06Event JSON
{
"id": "1107064c88b6026898ea36d6c370bdf4511735b17f194d753d232d28928b4bc5",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686151566,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b0d4dbe43a898155b6750ed1dce6a700ce007fe7f2dce49b1bbfe7e2cca60c4c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"085c6097ce00c6abfadad07880671f68596d91622398e74088881ff92ba5e7ac",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"86f42bcb76a431c128b596c36714ae73a42cae48706a9e5513d716043447f5ec"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-10-01\nš Original message:On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Alan Reiner \u003cetotheipi at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e If the first transaction is P2SH, then the miner won't know there is\n\u003e \u003e an advantage to holding it until it is too late (the scriptPubKey is\n\u003e \u003e an opaque hash until the second transaction is final and\n\u003e \u003e relayed/broadcast).\n\u003e\n\u003e If you're doing some kind of proof-of-burn scheme, wouldn't using P2SH\n\u003e defeat the purpose of it?\n\u003e\n\nNo, the burner would supply the funding transaction plus the redeeming\nscript as the proof-of-burn to whoever needed the proof.\n\nOnly after at least one confirmation, if there was some risk that revealing\nthe redeeming script would make miners refuse to mine that first\ntransaction because they want to get it plus the CHECKTIMELOCKVERIFY \"burn\"\ntransaction.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141001/05ee5140/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b2626bfe47e7179fbb8cd05c0a4b8c12d4237602dc0e5b2e6fdd30eb65811637f58ed78a135996238b9286e40ce5dbf7e552eefd6edbf0eabf97cf6cb8451a01"
}