> 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. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
