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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468B2E8E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0011663
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C916038A9923;
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:tobypadilla@gmail.com::coj1OGjnR01CCvHm:bh+WS
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::a/3EIZJaOTlq6qlK:qTMM
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>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201601260304.34013.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 03:05:03 -0000
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
|
