Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.176; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f176.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130212151108.GA639@savin>
References: <20130212151108.GA639@savin>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:42:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1P=OC7amNeZivTVcQSb0+=FSKhvAB-XjDzkqq6bc07-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf382a8cf804d58a8df6
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: empty scriptPubKeys and OP_RETURN
 for marking unspendable txouts
Precedence: list

--f46d043bdf382a8cf804d58a8df6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> .... Again, thoughts?
>

First: I really like the fidelity bond concept, and want to see it happen.

RE: OP_RETURN : I've got a knee-jerk opposition to the OP_RETURN opcode,
because it was the cause of the nastiest bug ever Bitcoin history. So I'd
be more comfortable using either OP_FALSE or OP_INVALIDOPCODE for the
"provably unspendable" transaction.


RE: anyone-can-spend transactions:  Thinking aloud... I wonder if we might
inadvertently cause "spend storms" on the network; if suddenly there are 11
BTC sitting in an anybody-can-spend txout, I could imagine EVERYBODY on the
network trying to race each other to spend it (maybe assuming that there
are a few miners on old versions of the software who are too dumb to claim
it for themselves).


-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--f46d043bdf382a8cf804d58a8df6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
.... Again, thoughts?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>First: I really l=
ike the fidelity bond concept, and want to see it happen.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>RE: OP_RETURN : I&#39;ve got a knee-jerk opposition to the OP_RETUR=
N opcode, because it was the cause of the nastiest bug ever Bitcoin history=
. So I&#39;d be more comfortable using either OP_FALSE or OP_INVALIDOPCODE =
for the &quot;provably unspendable&quot; transaction.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>RE: anyone-can-spend transactions: =A0Th=
inking aloud... I wonder if we might inadvertently cause &quot;spend storms=
&quot; on the network; if suddenly there are 11 BTC sitting in an anybody-c=
an-spend txout, I could imagine EVERYBODY on the network trying to race eac=
h other to spend it (maybe assuming that there are a few miners on old vers=
ions of the software who are too dumb to claim it for themselves).</div>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>

--f46d043bdf382a8cf804d58a8df6--