Hi waxwing, thank you for your comments.
> I'm probably against Recirculation as an idea. If even thinking about
> confiscation is a mistake (your "meta" comment; I agree), then maybe
> that's also true about changing system incentives with different
> redistributions. Maybe.
An important distinction to me is whether the change is happening "in
consensus" or as a result of decisions made at the application layer. Since
this is an application layer standard, I'm less opinionated about what people
choose to do with coins they come into control of. That said, I would agree
that if the technical consensus is that some action would be overall *harmful*
to the network then we shouldn't encourage it (and creating a standard like
this is just short of encouragement). I haven't been convinced that
Recirculation is definitively or even more likely to be *harmful* to bitcoin
than no Recirculation (at least no more harmful than any other sudden influx of
revenue for miners) but I am open to exploring this further if there is more to
the analysis than that. I will say, I do like the relative neutrality of the
no-Recirculation option ("lost coins are a donation to everyone", instead of
only miners benefiting).
> I'm thinking about taproot sans bip32. If can satisfy a script path spend
> then you could in theory prove with (merkle proof + validating spend) inside
> a QR ZKP. No?
Yes, excellent point. This should be added as a spending condition for the
Recovery address. Noted!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/66cf83b4-c304-4a77-802b-96873b17ec6f%40app.fastmail.com.
