1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
|
Return-Path: <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCA731103
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com
[209.85.213.42])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54D4963
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e64so85951826vkg.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:30:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=07lDSUcHIUoTaC3JZIdqgnWKQYMqMes/25XaSoOOTsA=;
b=M2w+z1+WyL5XH+s1lAVfau6sBE9YBWziItNnqYC/7APkJAdVWcOXWICVMpklTUJBsS
0/lfwbW8rNeAK7F1yNzZwLj8XUlRxIVyCR84XR7FXmC/uNp95c5OndXsfPz09eBEVZ4K
9Bbr/9B/GLfoBxLE2TlLLFmUpOcAFjlp9vmUFO0JlUXMlbrQtDmKi6T7MRJJt+amzphk
EwCvLIXFy18md+M5FaGDXRA0IZuKmIdE598PtTSWEA3ZQZapoVZLlE5bn92iZRJFpip1
fMRGgRGVAjgl7DAad40PLrlGewJrSZPz2yWhhjgs7uucWQaT5x8ksOfGjVTrVlgmroNA
Zl/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=07lDSUcHIUoTaC3JZIdqgnWKQYMqMes/25XaSoOOTsA=;
b=PX2dC5eQPlKZ8Ox19eNtL/9joVAqpCO2kjlZ3sbsQfcmhKTHoxW6ntBtLNaHImC1fS
SXVbqvFz7YDGUST/o6TvbO5Q7WAay7oMDrVXshZpqiyZn9ckiSYijDwMz1gKmDBjQ5OV
hO2wcnTflZVNcjy/wmlSbm6DYMbSoFIjui/3qimQ4kO8lc+5MHesh+LipJn8MLNmZP4c
6zd9oSW/XdEoHLiw7qcoRhWP7VzuU05oVRF8ekwdvTVSPluRb4GO/Xn2L5XdGjvMsBM6
LYIMr9W418uUc5aWvQIW1ZD5w9QSZfouZklCIAjRRP3y9OX4GXAV5buN3PRBGEUedbnO
69wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOThzfbJY43nlkYBOs33gX+8OLb8lqm5MfNBly3yefsZdvAnw9bTBaPZWuzJPy6d/TEYJzctTR9FtwrLNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.9.72 with SMTP id 69mr11565995vkj.126.1453779038254; Mon,
25 Jan 2016 19:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.96.85 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:30:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGcHOzw88za1m6uJY9MBO2X=3psNk667FyBOHz2XCPO3ABbcRw@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGcHOzwec-eoG-uZzXY2pb=VzQ98EvnijvxrcsrFYgKi2HQ_uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440dfa283beb052a344fdd
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_SBL 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, 26 Jan 2016 10:33:11 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
Protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 26 Jan 2016 03:30:39 -0000
--001a11440dfa283beb052a344fdd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
There are already valid use cases for OP_RETURN, it only makes sense to
fully support the feature. The only reason it's not supported now is
because the Payments protocol came before OP_RETURN.
I give one example use case in the BIP. I agree that special wallet support
would make the feature even better, but if someone tried to use Core the
transaction would at least not be rejected.
I've also been exploring this area with key.run (
https://git.playgrub.com/toby/keyrun) and want the functionality for voting
based on aggregate OP_RETURN value. *Not* to store data on the blockchain,
but to associate content pointers with transactions.
I think that since OP_RETURN has already been approved and supported it
doesn't make much sense for me to have to re-defend it from scratch here.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:17:12 AM Toby Padilla wrote:
> > I don't think every application of OP_RETURN could be classified as
> "spam".
>
> Perhaps not, but in this context I cannot think of any non-spam use cases.
> Use cases should come before changes to support them.
>
> > I also don't think burning the value is going to dissuade anyone from
> going
> > down that route. I don't think lost value is better for anyone.
>
> Lost value is better because it has a cost to the spammer, and deflates the
> rest of the bitcoins.
>
> Luke
>
--001a11440dfa283beb052a344fdd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">There are already valid use cases for OP_RETURN, it only m=
akes sense to fully support the feature. The only reason it's not suppo=
rted now is because the Payments protocol came before OP_RETURN.<div><br></=
div><div>I give one example use case in the BIP. I agree that special walle=
t support would make the feature even better, but if someone tried to use C=
ore the transaction would at least not be rejected.=C2=A0</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I've also been exploring this area with key.run (<a href=3D"htt=
ps://git.playgrub.com/toby/keyrun">https://git.playgrub.com/toby/keyrun</a>=
) and want the functionality for voting based on aggregate OP_RETURN value.=
*Not* to store data on the blockchain, but to associate content pointers w=
ith transactions.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that since OP_RETURN has=
already been approved and supported it doesn't make much sense for me =
to have to re-defend it from scratch here.=C2=A0</div></div><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:23 PM,=
Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:17:12 AM Toby Pad=
illa wrote:<br>
> I don't think every application of OP_RETURN could be classified a=
s "spam".<br>
<br>
</span>Perhaps not, but in this context I cannot think of any non-spam use =
cases.<br>
Use cases should come before changes to support them.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> I also don't think burning the value is going to dissuade anyone f=
rom going<br>
> down that route. I don't think lost value is better for anyone.<br=
>
<br>
</span>Lost value is better because it has a cost to the spammer, and defla=
tes the<br>
rest of the bitcoins.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11440dfa283beb052a344fdd--
|
