Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 379 results by pbremen01
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
If you send the same amount at the same time then of course this program could print the wrong addresses. What is here to prove?
But by manually sending the same amount of coins you're actually manually replicating other technologies for anonymization that are not implemented in KeyCoin. In fact, you're actually claiming that there exists better methods for anonymization than these that are implemented in KeyCoin (for example, CoinJoin with "denomination").
And your method isn't practical at all. If you own 10 coins, then with your method you can't send 10 coins anonymously (because you need to have at least (for example) 50 coins to send 5 separate transactions of 10 coins).
Of course my method isn't practical for the average user but it will prove that you can't really track from the destination to the source in this kind of scenario which would likely be replicated when there are many transactions moving at any one time.
The only thing that makes it possible currently is a blockchain with very few transactions. The program merely makes an educated guess on the source transactions and therefore the wallet address(es) that sent it in the first place. It doesn't disprove the anonymity solution works, it is merely exploiting the lack of transactions to jump to that conclusion easier.
Lack of transactions makes things easier for this program. However, similar methods can be employed in bitcoin and they work. Mixers have to be very sophisticated to hide transactions. But it seems that the mixer in keycoin is not.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
"Two examples of KeyCoin deanonymization with new deanonymizer program":
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess).http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%. However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you.
And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.).
But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.).
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to set up a test for you with 6 brand new 100% isolated wallets, 5 of which will be the starting point for 5 anonymous transactions of equal value. The other will be a receiving wallet with 5 receiving addresses (one for each incoming transaction).
You can then test the program on the 5 incoming txids/block heights and see if you can figure out which wallet initiated any of them. I guarantee neither you or the program will be able to figure it out which addresses sent coins to which addresses. If you do it will be pure luck.
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
I lol'd, you haven't even tested it yourself, now you're saying it needs modifications to work lmao. Thanks for showing everyone how full of shit you are. Now gtfo, key devs will deliver their promises soon enough.
How did you come to this conclusion?
I compiled it and tested it. And I completely understand how it works. I just can't run this program on the linux laptop that I'm currently using.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
pbremen01: It's amazing how full of crap you are and any time you are challenged to prove something you always have an excuse.
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
Don't worry I'm in the process of setting up a test for you now with several completely unconnected wallets. If you can't deanonymise it yourself due to [insert excuse here] then feel free to pass it on to one of your friends who claim that they can do so.
Hell I'll even provide all of the wallet.dat files upon the conclusion of the test so that it can be independently verified if the test has been a success or failure. (After they've been emptied of funds of course).
If you send the same amount at the same time then of course this program could print the wrong addresses. What is here to prove?
But by manually sending the same amount of coins you're actually manually replicating other technologies for anonymization that are not implemented in KeyCoin. In fact, you're actually claiming that there exists better methods for anonymization than these that are implemented in KeyCoin (for example, CoinJoin with "denomination").
And your method isn't practical at all. If you own 10 coins, then with your method you can't send 10 coins anonymously (because you need to have at least (for example) 50 coins to send 5 separate transactions of 10 coins).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
It's pretty obvious what I'm trying to prove and that is it doesn't actually deanonymise anything. It merely looks for values of a similar amount (taking account of fees) and makes a logical assumption about which transactions (and therefore wallets) originated it, a fact that is made easier by very limited transactions on the blockchain at any one time.
There is no real link between these transactions and if the blockchain was more congested it would be damn near impossible to figure out.
With 5 completely separate wallets as I am proposing there would be absolutely no way to trace any transaction back to the originating wallet, this is proof enough that in a more congested blockchain with many people sending anonymous transactions at any one time it would be impossible to track them.
You don't need "link" between transactions in the blockchain to deanonymize it. There is probably no link because mixers probably don't send the same coins to the final recipient.
If you - for example - send 84.237482496 coins then looking in blockchain for amounts that are equal to this one (even if they are part of different transactions) usually yields only one result.
Such method of deanonymization works even in larger networks with lots of transactions, for example in bitcoin. That's why mixers have employed much more advanced methods of hiding transactions. For example, they steal some coins (the recipient doesn't receive
84.237482496 - transaction fees
but instead it receives
84.237482496 - transaction fees - amount of coins stolen
). And mixers also send coins to recipients to several addresses and over much longer period of time which may be very random (days or even weeks).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
"Two examples of KeyCoin deanonymization with new deanonymizer program":
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess).
These transactions seem to be fairly old and are from the good old times when there were at least some transactions in the blockchain
However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%.
However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you.
And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.).
But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.).
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to set up a test for you with 6 brand new 100% isolated wallets, 5 of which will be the starting point for 5 anonymous transactions of equal value. The other will be a receiving wallet with 5 receiving addresses (one for each incoming transaction).
You can then test the program on the 5 incoming txids/block heights and see if you can figure out which wallet initiated any of them. I guarantee neither you or the program will be able to figure it out which addresses sent coins to which addresses. If you do it will be pure luck.
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
And for such "manual" hiding of transactions you don't even need a mixer.
You could just manually create raw transaction that has inputs of the same size. This is how (some implementations of) CoinJoin work and I'm not sure that this is considered "anonymous" enough (I think that future versions of DRK may not use it, I'm not sure).
However, this coin went into another direction (mixers) but you're trying to manually replicate the inner working of other technology (CoinJoin).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
"Two examples of KeyCoin deanonymization with new deanonymizer program":
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess).
These transactions seem to be fairly old and are from the good old times when there were at least some transactions in the blockchain
However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%.
However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you.
And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.).
But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.).
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to set up a test for you with 6 brand new 100% isolated wallets, 5 of which will be the starting point for 5 anonymous transactions of equal value. The other will be a receiving wallet with 5 receiving addresses (one for each incoming transaction).
You can then test the program on the 5 incoming txids/block heights and see if you can figure out which wallet initiated any of them. I guarantee neither you or the program will be able to figure it out which addresses sent coins to which addresses. If you do it will be pure luck.
I can't run this program because I'm currently on linux box and I'm not going to mess with mono.
I don't understand what are you trying to prove. If you send same amount at the same time, then this program may find the wrong addresses. There's no need to prove this because it can be seen from source code.
However, it can (with modifications) find all these addresses that you control. This is enough for deanonymization.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
"Two examples of KeyCoin deanonymization with new deanonymizer program":
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
Seriously are you still on that? Tracking an anonymous transaction when there are practically no other transactions moving about isn't exactly difficult because it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the source transactions by looking back a few blocks and taking fees into account along the way. Anyone could do this by examining the block explorer. (You don't need a program to come to an educated guess).
These transactions seem to be fairly old and are from the good old times when there were at least some transactions in the blockchain
However, if I were to send several anonymous transactions of equal amounts, all from unique wallets, all within a short space of time there is no way in hell this program (or anyone trying to decipher it manually) would be able to come to an educated guess because there would be too much transaction congestion to figure out which transactions came from which wallet or end up at which destination.
That's true. If several wallets send the same amount at almost the same time, then this method won't work 100%.
However, this method still gives you list of the addresses that sender exerts at least some control over them (it owns private keys or it has the power to use them to create "fake" transactions). The "working" anonymity implementation should not allow even such "guesses" - such guesses are more than enough for someone (law enforcement etc.) to track you.
And this method could probably be modified to distinguish "fake" transactions from the "real" ones based on the the way how "real" transactions look in the blockchain (for example, "real" transactions use inputs that are outputs of the transactions in the same block, one could also "color" some coins and send them through the mixer etc.).
But the devs will have to prove that such attacks don't and can't work (even in the case when - for example - someone decompiles precompiled binaries etc.).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/9 Status Update
"Two examples of KeyCoin deanonymization with new deanonymizer program":
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
http://crypto-news.tumblr.com/post/94329216643/two-examples-of-keycoin-deanonymization-with-new
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/3 Video, CoinsSource
Found this on Reddit:
[Link removed for the benefit of those ignoring you]
[Link removed for the benefit of those ignoring you]
Of course you found it. You wrote it.
I wrote it? I didn't know that. And I am also "currently coding improved version of deanonymizer"? I didn't know that either.
Why do you think that authorship of this post can change the fact that there are almost no transactions in the blockchain and that only few people control the mining of PoS blocks?
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/3 Video, CoinsSource
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/3 Video, CoinsSource
What exactly is KeyOS?
Tails based linux distribution with binaries of keycoin wallet preinstalled?
Are these binaries closed source or are they compiled from the source code in public git repository?
Tails based linux distribution with binaries of keycoin wallet preinstalled?
Are these binaries closed source or are they compiled from the source code in public git repository?
Re: [ANN][CRYPT] CryptCoin x11 + PoS | P2P Anonymity | 0% Premine | Commander
From the key sub and what I have gathered here this seems to be the story line. Correct me if I'm wrong. It was talked up early. Took off for a short time. Rogue Dev and others fudded it back down. It survived. Still holds steady. Many of the Devs at Key are also involved here. Feet up, drink in hand, awaiting the mindfox bomb. All in due time 
Before this "roque dev" fiasco there was "security analysis" fiasco (anon method proposed in a whitepaper can't work at all) that probably caused the first drop.
After this "security analysis" and before "rogue dev" the pumpers posted "fake" news about btc-e.
Still holds steady? Did you check the price and the volume on Mintpal? 24h volume is almost 0.
This coin is dead from the trading point of view. Only the working and flawless anon implementation can resurrect it.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
It depends on individual transactions (and their value) and the coin age. If someone is staking then a minimum cycle is 8 hours so someone could lets say deposit 1000 into their wallet and approximately 8 hours later:
What do you mean by minimum cycle? It seems that certain addresses mine PoS block much faster.
They get 0.01 interest (this is purely an example value to simplify this explanation) and such get returned 2 new transactions. One of which is for 500, the other for 500.01.
This is not correct. AFAIK there is only one PoS transaction in each PoS block. This transaction can have one or more outputs.
Approximately 8 hours later:
The previous transaction for 500 splits and returns one transaction for 250, one transaction for 250.005
The previous transaction for 500.01 splits and returns one transaction for 250, one transaction for 250.0125
At this stage, one initial deposit has become 4 transactions and this process keeps repeating at approximately 8 hour intervals if a wallet is left open for staking. On the next cycle there are 8 transactions, then 16, then 32, then 64. etc.
What exactly don't you grasp about this concept?
This is not possible. Such exponential growth would quickly cause blockchain to use enormous amounts of disk space. For example, if the number of "transactions" double in every period that lasts 8 hour, then in 1 month there will be 30*8 doublings.
2^240 = 1766847064778384329583297500742918515827483896875618958121606201292619776
This is enormous number.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Is something wrong with the keycoin blockchain and/or client?
Blockchain explorer shows that almost all of the last several hundreds of blocks contain only one transaction (+coinbase).
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
Blockchain explorer shows that almost all of the last several hundreds of blocks contain only one transaction (+coinbase).
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
Can someone answer this post? Why there are almost no normal transactions in the blockchain? Only Bagpipe has given reasonable explanation (that enormous amounts of coins are owned by very small number of people who obviously have no need to do transactions). But his answer doesn't explain why number of transactions was much higher before (the people in this small group probably owned enormous amounts of coins from the beginning).
I've already answered your question. If there are no other transactions then nobody is moving coins around. It doesn't mean anything is broken, blocks will continue to be generated regardless of whether people are moving coins or not.
Yes, I know that the lack of transactions in blocks doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong from the technical standpoint.
But if there are no technical problems, then there may be some "human" problem. I've just checked latest blocks and they still don't have any normal transactions (just coinbase transaction + PoS transaction). Why people don't move at least some coins around?
And about 30% of the latest PoS "mined" blocks are mined just by one address (KCosuASuqafu4or4DphdiCX5qQEr53kHyb):
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/key/address.dws?KCosuASuqafu4or4DphdiCX5qQEr53kHyb.htm
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Can you verify your calculations?
Of course.
Look at block 4500 on the block explorer. (The last Proof Of Work block)
Outstanding coins = 913,277.500272311
Deduct the Outstanding Coins value above from that of the current block. Using block 21588 at the time I type this:
Outstanding coins = 913,595.438148831
913,595.438148831 - 913,277.500272311 = 317.93787652
Block 4500 was created at 4:19 am (GMT) on 18th July that's currently ~2 hours short of 16 days.
317.93787652 / 16 = 19.8711172825
Quote
20% interests per annum is not equivalent to 316 coins in 16 or 17 days (I assumed daily compounding of interests).
You're also assuming everyone is staking. Bittrex holds ~47% of all coins and most of their wallet addresses seem to be flagged as belonging to them. I don't think I've ever seen one of those flagged addresses staking.
The amount of the coins that are generated by staking at each block doesn't (directly) depend on the number of addresses that are staking.
Function GetProofOfStakeReward depends on the coin age (probably age of the coins in the user's wallet) and doesn't depend on the total number of coins (or addresses) that are staking.
The last published binaries (compiled by the devs) weren't compiled from the source code at
https://bitbucket.org/keycoin/keycoin/
and so they may contain some undisclosed changes compared to bitbucket source code (but it is probably unlikely that these undisclosed changes are related to PoS).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Quote
20% interests per annum is not equivalent to 316 coins in 16 or 17 days (I assumed daily compounding of interests).
You're assuming everyone is staking. Bittrex holds ~47% of all coins and most of their wallet addresses seem to be flagged as belonging to them. I don't think I've ever seen one of those flagged addresses staking.
How is the number of coins that are generated (by staking) in each block calculated? How does the formula look like?
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Basically, the release model of this coin is made in a way that is likely to generate exponential rise in the price, but then, the coin count rise is ALSO exponential and one day the coin amount will catch up with it.
With Proof Of Work finished, only 913,592 coins in existence and 20% interest per annum you're not going to see anywhere near the inflation of most other coins which generate many thousands of coins a day.
Even taking compound interest into account the slow rate at which new coins are being generated could be very easily absorbed by the market.
There have been 316.4928275 new coins generated since proof of work ended on 18th July 2014. That is less than 20 new coins a day generated by way of Proof of Stake.
Can you verify your calculations?
20% interests per annum is not equivalent to 316 coins in 16 or 17 days (I assumed daily compounding of interests).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Is something wrong with the keycoin blockchain and/or client?
Blockchain explorer shows that almost all of the last several hundreds of blocks contain only one transaction (+coinbase).
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
Blockchain explorer shows that almost all of the last several hundreds of blocks contain only one transaction (+coinbase).
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
Can someone answer this post? Why there are almost no normal transactions in the blockchain? Only Bagpipe has given reasonable explanation (that enormous amounts of coins are owned by very small number of people who obviously have no need to do transactions). But his answer doesn't explain why number of transactions was much higher before (the people in this small group probably owned enormous amounts of coins from the beginning).
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
this transaction actually "generates" new coins (sum of outputs is larger than its input).
That's why it's called interest.
The first 2 transactions are always related to the generation of the Proof Of Stake block. If there are more than 2 transactions then there are actual coins moving about in that block.
Yeah, but two transactions are unnecessary. Only one is needed for interests.
Re: [ANN] [KEY] KeyCoin | Fair Launch | Daily Updates | 8/2 Vetted, KeyOS Info
Blockchain explorer shows that almost all of the last several hundreds of blocks contain only one transaction (+coinbase).
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
This transaction has the same input and output addresses (somebody is sending coins back to himself, could this be related to PoS?). There are almost no normal transactions.
That's how Proof of Stake works, it returns your original coin + interest split into 2 new transactions at each cycle. 1 transaction becomes 2, becomes 4, becomes 8. etc. etc. etc.
This is what keeps transactions moving in a Proof Of Stake coin.
Thanks, I was suspecting something like this. However, to me it would make more sense to use coinbase transaction for this purpose because this transaction actually "generates" new coins (sum of outputs is larger than its input). After the PoW phase the coinbase transactions are empty and probably just unnecessarily pollute the blockchain.