Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBDBB1688
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-1857040135.protonmail.ch (mail-1857040135.protonmail.ch
	[185.70.40.135])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B3DD621
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 21:22:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
	s=default; t=1526347355;
	bh=nU/IFb8KjR5m+65SPedkSW3GrkIDpt5u0vKlWJpv1nA=;
	h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
	Feedback-ID:From;
	b=OAdCvx2/TJk7j7ZsH7LgUMMWRvLus2PVtVzKzQ+doKrHsxD50wsdNeIrNecMKxjnY
	Y4m3u4L+V6I4bbDZ7ak5CsI4yIL5kPBvINHAO1onIo/mg78dZc7iTlNuHwl3cEtOpU
	BOL+8NiiYgAvKkrS53TJ73KJKqHeUUjlg9Mh04MM=
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <pVpDgf56HrClum8YbXrgAgP3TUVGEEywi7aHPkNuRHSv0WweeISvFU8YBpfqsDc814KgwkMHGCSZVS-bh5609EvDUH-x4w9MvKz2ToK-J6s=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org>
Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:32:26 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:38 -0000

Good morning Luke,

> (Maybe it should be the first output
>=20
> instead of the last... Is there any legitimate reason one would have mult=
iple
>=20
> such dummy outputs?)

None, but how about use of `SIGHASH_SINGLE` flag? If a dummy output is adde=
d as the first, would it not require adjustment of the inputs of the transa=
ction?

In context you are discussing the transaction serialization, though, so per=
haps `SIGHASH_SINGLE`, is unaffected?

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj