Hi Antoine,
It is important to consider that miners are not always incentivized by what
brings them the most profit in the moment, but also their long-term prospects.
If they begin participating in transaction censorship, they open the
possibility of reducing the value of the coins they mine an
It's been said before, but I'll say it again:
If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will
simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public
key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing
to pad the blockchain with
Good morning Russel and List,
That is correct. There is a counterparty-compatible project called STAMPS that
breaks up image data into chunks and then embeds the chunks in bare multisig
outputs. here is an example on one:
https://mempool.space/tx/ee9ed76fa2318deb63a24082a8edc73e4ea39a5252bfb1c1
> If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will
> simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public
> key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing
> to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys, ther
Hi Ryan,
>As I envision it, there is no cryptographic proof involved at all.
That seems to directly contradict your previous message where you stated
"[t]hey transmit invalid transactions or blocks". This transmission you
alluded to is basically a (non-optimized) fraud proof, and it assumes that
It is important to also note that proof of secret key schemes are highly data
inefficient and likely would have a higher cost for users than simply allowing
arbitrary data to continue. In ECDSA, purposely re-using k values allows you to
encode data in both k and the entire secret key, as both be
