I know I'm probably being very simplistic, as I'm pretty new to blockchains and you are humouring me, so thanks for that. I do appreciate your time and patience.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 10, 2015, 01:06:10 PM

A transaction is a list of inputs followed by a list of outputs.
Please explain what a zero input, zero output, "intent to move" transaction would look like.

If the "intent to move" transaction doesn't have any intputs, then how will it indicate which bitcoins you intend to move?
If the "intent to move" transaction doesn't have any outputs, then how will it indicate where you intend to move the bitcoins?

Data Output (OP_RETURN) don't have any inputs or outputs right? Anyway, probably easier just to make it a transaction which sends coins back to the same address, so not zero input/output, inputs being same as outputs, send to self

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 10, 2015, 01:06:10 PM

What prevents an attacker from flooding the network with "intent to move" transactions followed by "block intent to move" transactions?

Transaction fees

Quote from: DannyHamilton on January 10, 2015, 01:06:10 PM

If the thief gains access to your private keys from your wallet, he can just import those private keys into a wallet that sends immediate transactions without an "intent to move". Therefore, this doesn't really offer you much protection anyhow.

I was kind of thinking of hierarchical deterministic wallets (BIP0032/BIP0044), one of the children keys being the one stored live and seed key being used to publish the "block intent to move"