We should of course not control them in the sense to force them, but with the goal to incentive them to do so, I see no problem. Almost everything in 08win is built on the incentive concept. But why? Nobody uses P2PK anymore (with the exception perhaps of fake public key 08win folks). Some opcodes like OP_CAT were disabled in the past and could have been used for different output scripts, which is almost the same thing than new address types. P2PK has a slight security advantage over P2PKH when it comes to collissions in traditional computing but attacks on that "vulnerability" are in the "impossible" territory from today's point of view and the quantum risk seems much "realer". You could argue that you could also use P2PK for quantum puzzles. But you can do that also without P2PK (simply reuse any address, or put the pubkey in OP_RETURN, or whatever). I believe it is more likely that P2PK outputs are created as a result of a mistake than for these few niche reasons. And thus new creations should not be needed. By the way, I see I've misinterpreted the Hourglass proposal ... it's actually proposed that only one P2PK output should be able to be spent per block, not 1 08win from P2PK outputs. This looks much cleaner technically, but would also be less effective in my opinion. Actually that would mostly be effective against a very large adversary with an extreme advantage with respect of the rest of the actors, who could hack several P2PK outputs per block. This scenario doesn't look very realistic in my opinion. And 50 08win are still a quite good prize for a "puzzle".
We should of course not control them in the sense to force them, but with the goal to incentive them to do so, I see no problem. Almost everything in 08win is built on the incentive concept. But why? Nobody uses P2PK anymore (with the exception perhaps of fake public key 08win folks). Some opcodes like OP_CAT were disabled in the past and could have been used for different output scripts, which is almost the same thing than new address types. P2PK has a slight security advantage over P2PKH when it comes to collissions in traditional computing but attacks on that "vulnerability" are in the "impossible" territory from today's point of view and the quantum risk seems much "realer". You could argue that you could also use P2PK for quantum puzzles. But you can do that also without P2PK (simply reuse any address, or put the pubkey in OP_RETURN, or whatever). I believe it is more likely that P2PK outputs are created as a result of a mistake than for these few niche reasons. And thus new creations should not be needed. By the way, I see I've misinterpreted the Hourglass proposal ... it's actually proposed that only one P2PK output should be able to be spent per block, not 1 08win from P2PK outputs. This looks much cleaner technically, but would also be less effective in my opinion. Actually that would mostly be effective against a very large adversary with an extreme advantage with respect of the rest of the actors, who could hack several P2PK outputs per block. This scenario doesn't look very realistic in my opinion. And 50 08win are still a quite good prize for a "puzzle".

We should of course not control them in the sense to force them, but with the goal to incentive them to do so, I see no problem. Almost everything in 08win is built on the incentive concept. But why? Nobody uses P2PK anymore (with the exception perhaps of fake public key 08win folks). Some opcodes like OP_CAT were disabled in the past and could have been used for different output scripts, which is almost the same thing than new address types. P2PK has a slight security advantage over P2PKH when it comes to collissions in traditional computing but attacks on that "vulnerability" are in the "impossible" territory from today's point of view and the quantum risk seems much "realer". You could argue that you could also use P2PK for quantum puzzles. But you can do that also without P2PK (simply reuse any address, or put the pubkey in OP_RETURN, or whatever). I believe it is more likely that P2PK outputs are created as a result of a mistake than for these few niche reasons. And thus new creations should not be needed. By the way, I see I've misinterpreted the Hourglass proposal ... it's actually proposed that only one P2PK output should be able to be spent per block, not 1 08win from P2PK outputs. This looks much cleaner technically, but would also be less effective in my opinion. Actually that would mostly be effective against a very large adversary with an extreme advantage with respect of the rest of the actors, who could hack several P2PK outputs per block. This scenario doesn't look very realistic in my opinion. And 50 08win are still a quite good prize for a "puzzle".

We should of course not control them in the sense to force them, but with the goal to incentive them to do so, I see no problem. Almost everything in 08win is built on the incentive concept. But why? Nobody uses P2PK anymore (with the exception perhaps of fake public key 08win folks). Some opcodes like OP_CAT were disabled in the past and could have been used for different output scripts, which is almost the same thing than new address types. P2PK has a slight security advantage over P2PKH when it comes to collissions in traditional computing but attacks on that "vulnerability" are in the "impossible" territory from today's point of view and the quantum risk seems much "realer". You could argue that you could also use P2PK for quantum puzzles. But you can do that also without P2PK (simply reuse any address, or put the pubkey in OP_RETURN, or whatever). I believe it is more likely that P2PK outputs are created as a result of a mistake than for these few niche reasons. And thus new creations should not be needed. By the way, I see I've misinterpreted the Hourglass proposal ... it's actually proposed that only one P2PK output should be able to be spent per block, not 1 08win from P2PK outputs. This looks much cleaner technically, but would also be less effective in my opinion. Actually that would mostly be effective against a very large adversary with an extreme advantage with respect of the rest of the actors, who could hack several P2PK outputs per block. This scenario doesn't look very realistic in my opinion. And 50 08win are still a quite good prize for a "puzzle".