Thread

Idea: Proof of burned sats, but where the burned sats are not taken by the current miner and are taken by a random future miner instead. If I create a #Bitcoin transaction with an anyone-can-spend output, but with CheckLockTimeVerify to delay the expenditure until some future block, then that future miner will (if rational) just spend that output to send fees to itself. Is that correct? #AskNostr (I'm asking about this for a fascinating idea I've heard in today's NostrHackDay where we want to provably 'burn' some sats but - due to miner misincentives - we don't always want the miner of the next block to get (all of) the burned sats; we want some future miner to get it) [ @Nostr Hack Day ] [ @tuma ]

Replies (2)

↩ replying to tuma
I assumed that miners (and others) already notice this. It's free sats after all 😀. Although, maybe they don't have code to identify these free sats. But I'm sure they'll quickly put such code in place once they see all the free sats that we're burning with all our Nostr posts! And if they don't, I'll write a bot to claim them all for myself 😀. (Assuming my LLM is correct) such transactions are not considered 'standard' and therefore won't be relayed by default. My goal is an 'obviously-anyone-can-spend' output, with a delay, which will be relayed by typical nodes. So we might need to change relay policy to really allow this to take off. image PS: now I think it should be delayed for decades/centuries. When burning our sats, we should optimize for how we might help with the future security budget