Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Vote on the blocksize limit with proof-of-stake voting

From: John Dillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:28:23 +0000

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Peter Todd <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
>> to sign votes.  Not only that, but it would require them to reveal their
>> public key, which while isn't technically so terrible, large amounts of
>> money intended to be kept in storage for 10+ years will prefer to avoid
>> any exposure at all, in the oft-chance that QCs come around a lot
>> earlier than we expected.  Sure, the actual risk should be pretty much
>> non-existent, but some of the most paranoid folks are probably the same
>> ones who have a lot of funds and want 100.00% of the security that is
>> possible.   They will see this as wildly inconvenient.
>
> Solving that problem is pretty easy actually: just add a voting only
> public key to your outputs. Specifically you would have an opcode called
> something like "OP_VOTE" and put a code-path in your script that only
> executes for that specific key.

Rather than "OP_VOTE" all you really need is the "spending tx matches a
template" functionality that has been proposed for many other things.