[tor-talk] Gmail and Bitcoin? [OT]

Mike Hearn hearn at google.com
Mon Jan 14 20:01:09 UTC 2013

> I like the idea of using transaction fees as proof of sacrifice because
> they are randomly assigned to miners. The nym authority could just watch
> the transactions and would have no economic stake.

I don't think you even need a nym authority. All the proof of
sacrifice you need can be represented in a single data structure, like
a file. Think of the proof as a certificate. Then you could come up
with a simple set of HTTP extensions so browsers can sign a nonce
using the same keys used to sign the all-fee transactions.

> Here is another variant on this idea. You have a non-profit nym authority
> that takes payments and then redistributes these payments. Redistribution
> could be (certifiably) random, to the bitcoin addresses of known
> non-profits, or you could burn the bitcoins by sending them to an address
> with (certifiably) no private key.

Sending to non profits raises the question of which non-profits are
"good". Miners are politically neutral and virtually guaranteed to
spread the money out uniformly. Burning coins, please don't. It
reduces the resolution of the system for everyone else. I think
sending coins to miners is the simplest approach - it doesn't have any
messy political issues around who gets the coins, the coins are
guaranteed to be received by interested parties, and it doesn't hurt
the Bitcoin system. Actually it helps.

More information about the tor-talk mailing list