From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:04:33 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201601260256.55378.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGcHOzwpcCdgJ1VcBrnZ+D8dfZFBJYLs_A9Z4Nz-FJokdkcuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGcHOzwpcCdgJ1VcBrnZ+D8dfZFBJYLs_A9Z4Nz-FJokdkcuyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201601260304.34013.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
	Protocol
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:01:13 AM Toby Padilla wrote:
> > As I explained, none of those reasons apply to PaymentRequests.
> 
> As they exist today PaymentRequests allow for essentially the same types of
> transactions as non-PaymentRequest based transactions with the limitation
> that OP_RETURN values must be greater. In that sense they're basically a
> pre-OP_RETURN environment. OP_RETURN serves a purpose and it can't be used
> with PaymentRequest transactions.

OP_RETURN can be used, but you need to burn coins. I don't see any benefit to 
changing that. It is better that coins are burned.

> > I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
> 
> I think if you think through how you would create an OP_RETURN transaction
> today without this BIP you'll see you need a key at some point if you want
> a zero value.

You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.

Luke