If the burn sats went directly to the miner within the same block, i.e. they were burned by giving them away as miner fees, then there is an attack that any miner - large or small - can easily do
(Given that this problem exists, the notarization proposal uses a different approach)
Any miner, in the naive system, could trivially do a "fake burn", by paying sats to themselves
As discussed, a mitigation is to delay them until the future
If the burn sats are moved a small amount into the future, then large miners have an advantage over small miners, as the large miners can still do a (small) fake burn because they know some of the "burned" sats will come back to themselves;
If a mining pool has 40% of hashrate, they can announce a service where you give them 10 sats and they will "fake burn" 15 says. They'll get 6 of those sats back
That's why a few of us have advocated from the start that it should be sent decades into the future, using CLTV
SatsAndSports
npub1zt…wxm56
2026-06-01 15:12:52 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…sam7
Author Public Key
npub1zthq85gksjsjthv8h6rec2qeqs2mu0emrm9xknkhgw7hfl7csrnq6wxm56Published at
2026-06-01 15:12:52 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "0eef388d6b8f4add665f4d4f64a15d6b90e0043fc67bec40e4c48066da8ae133",
"pubkey": "12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6",
"created_at": 1780326772,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"alt",
"A short note: If the burn sats went directly to the miner within..."
],
[
"e",
"61035cd398b1057277c4a858537866cdb5742e750beab3c64efd64e9ddc30ac6",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"root",
"48dbb5e717a6221d64fd13ba12794bc28e5067ac1d7632ee9437d533772750df"
],
[
"e",
"9fe5b3a5cb10c7021ddb864a5b4e19cd30f7b653728ed9d6446d798bb35a9f7a",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"",
"12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6"
],
[
"e",
"98d7661ce52f0e9503458af636a647282a73570f1437f9f2c2746114fffb6148",
"wss://relay.primal.net/",
"reply",
"86448dded57eed414e608669215772355ec80855a09c09a7ce2180c689eb3ba6"
],
[
"p",
"1027fd5bc3b5e50c9800d48bc8acfbc290d89b857c7ce15572a57048c4c0558e",
"wss://nos.lol/"
],
[
"p",
"48dbb5e717a6221d64fd13ba12794bc28e5067ac1d7632ee9437d533772750df",
"wss://relay.sigit.io/"
],
[
"p",
"86448dded57eed414e608669215772355ec80855a09c09a7ce2180c689eb3ba6",
"wss://nostr.wine/"
],
[
"p",
"12ee03d11684a125dd87be879c28190415be3f3b1eca6b4ed743bd74ffd880e6",
"wss://nos.lol/"
],
[
"client",
"Amethyst"
]
],
"content": "If the burn sats went directly to the miner within the same block, i.e. they were burned by giving them away as miner fees, then there is an attack that any miner - large or small - can easily do\n\n(Given that this problem exists, the notarization proposal uses a different approach)\n\nAny miner, in the naive system, could trivially do a \"fake burn\", by paying sats to themselves\n\nAs discussed, a mitigation is to delay them until the future\n\nIf the burn sats are moved a small amount into the future, then large miners have an advantage over small miners, as the large miners can still do a (small) fake burn because they know some of the \"burned\" sats will come back to themselves;\n\nIf a mining pool has 40% of hashrate, they can announce a service where you give them 10 sats and they will \"fake burn\" 15 says. They'll get 6 of those sats back\n\nThat's why a few of us have advocated from the start that it should be sent decades into the future, using CLTV",
"sig": "343645272e08eedf4071bc1e5ad024fa28acbab04f8857ded7ea31c97ac36ef9de0f82a3e229dc2314820993e7a54d006b9bd1d82806208485fa47dd2ba4e33a"
}