Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

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) [ @npub1w8lx...94qr ] [ @tuma ]

Replies (7)

Micha Micha@primal.net 4 months ago

Why do the sats have to go to a miner? Just send them to an unspendable OP return Output

1 replies ↓

SatsAndSports 4 months ago

True. But I think it's better to gives sats to miners instead of just randomly destroying them. In the long term, this approach might help with the security budget; it doesn't matter now, but it might be important in a few decades and hence I'd like to give 'burned' sats to (future) miners On the other hand, I accept that if we are selfish individual bitcoiners, then we want the sats to be permanently destroyed in order to increase the relative scarcity of the sats we hold 😀 I suspect that burning sats might be a big thing in the future, for various reasons, hence I like the idea of helping (a little) with any long-term concerns about the security budget.

Micha Micha@primal.net 4 months ago

Ok, i understand your thinking. I disagree with the security budget concern, but at the moment it's all speculation and I might be wrong. So I'm happy people are thinking about it. This video might be interesting for you:

1 replies ↓

SatsAndSports 4 months ago

I agree with you that the security budget isn't a concern (yet). And I don't think it'll be a problem for a few decades at a minimum. And things might be fine even 1,000 years from now! But it _might_ be a problem sometime And also, to be honest, I just find it very to think about game theory problems like this!

Micha Micha@primal.net 4 months ago

Yes, game theorising about bitcoins future is always fun.

tuma tuma@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago

There should also be a tool to signal miners that the output is ready to be spent, otherwise they might just forget about it!

1 replies ↓

SatsAndSports 4 months ago

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.

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