Coinbase coins are not the same as gmaxwell stated.
You said "3. A pool would send some BTC from the coinbase to TRUST_ADDRESS.
4. In the SAME block the pool sends from TRUST_ADDRESS to where-ever."
They can't be "spent" for 100 blocks as was stated to do so would require a protocol change.
Very well this is not critical. There are a multitude of ways to put data such as a signature in the blocks:
1. Coinbase transactions allow arbitrary data in their script.
2. OP_RETURN (experimental though)
I have edited my post to use coinbase data instead.
Actually, he's correct. It's you who should reread what you wrote. Seriously.
See above.
I apologize for my tone, I thought he had skimmed my post.
If you're going to remove the non-membership of mining and require certified (and ... presumably licensed by states, since the process will make it easy to pin them down) ...
1. I will not.
2. No state license, JUST a cryptographic signature that "TRUST_ADDRESS"-owner created this block - who-ever he is.
... but they're very much at odds with Bitcoin's security model. In Bitcoin mining is anonymous (in the sense that it has no membership)
1. Yes anonymity is important. That is why no membership is required and its just a signature the pool makes.
2. You can STILL mine with my solution as untrusted. My idea would ONLY really do something if all the blocks came from a single trusted party or from various unknown/untrusted sources.
3. It is not a proof of trust, but just proof a certain perhaps anonymous source made the block and you only care in extreme cases.
Anything that lets you tell if blocks are from the "same dude" creates hooks to force miners to only mine particular transactions.
1. Since it is only a cryptographic signature you don't know WHO it is. It could be a botnet that no one knows anything about but they just happen to make fairly normal blocks
so they get added to the trust list.
2. Miners can still mine whatever they like, this makes no change to that at all. You can still make 100% empty blocks. Only if it becomes an issue people will remove you from the trust list.
(WRT "protocol changes", the coins produced by the coinbase transaction cannot be spent for 100 blocks)
Ok so we put a signature of the block or block height into the coinbase script or somewhere else.
If anyone can mine with no ID and no disadvantage what prevents every miner (including the attacker) from using a unique ID in every single block, and thus being indistinguishable?
1. The ones adding the IDs to trust lists would be users and client developers. Random new IDs would not be in the lists. Yet there is no central authority.
2. However if 50-60% of the network is mining with known and trusted IDs then it doesnt matter if a new pool or "attacker" makes blocks with unknown IDs/no IDs they will still be accepted.
Alternatively, if you pin blocks based on the decisions of some of these "optional" IDs to the detriment of IDless miners, what prevents the ID-ed miners from pinning a particular otherwise-non-consensus blockchain
1. You still have to follow protocol, it would be impossible to change rules.
2. There is ONLY detriment to ID less miners if they combined make 40% + of all blocks otherwise all are equal.
3. Again users choose which IDs their client should trust so who is ID-ed/trusted miners can change instantly during an attack.
Show Posts
