Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Z1Fwx-0001t6-8E
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:23:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f45.google.com; 
Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z1Fwv-00074s-Hr
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:23:55 +0000
Received: by oihb142 with SMTP id b142so70697844oih.3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.78.142 with SMTP id c136mr7067119oib.131.1433604228144; 
	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201506061518.19431.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAPswA9w5Sgg6AV=9Pqx5sqbkdrwv9LmwoxmMu7xZsQSNXtmZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201506061518.19431.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:23:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBg+rE-0cxMU480Fierq_dU+=93LBD+vDatGdcSkPbvjqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c162e0c462dc0517dafe68
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
	0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z1Fwv-00074s-Hr
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for Proof of Payment
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:23:55 -0000

--001a11c162e0c462dc0517dafe68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> I also agree with Pieter, that this should *not* be so cleanly compatible
> with Bitcoin transactions. If you wish to share code, perhaps using an
> invalid opcode rather than OP_RETURN would be appropriate.


Using an invalid opcode would merely send funds into the void. It wouldn't
invalidate the transaction.

-- 
Pieter

--001a11c162e0c462dc0517dafe68
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.or=
g</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I also agree with Pieter, that this sh=
ould *not* be so cleanly compatible<br>
with Bitcoin transactions. If you wish to share code, perhaps using an<br>
invalid opcode rather than OP_RETURN would be appropriate.</blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>Using an invalid opcode would merely send funds into the vo=
id. It wouldn&#39;t invalidate the transaction.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pi=
eter<br>=C2=A0<br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c162e0c462dc0517dafe68--