MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
	Protocol
Precedence: list

--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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</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>
&gt; I don&#39;t think every application of OP_RETURN could be classified a=
s &quot;spam&quot;.<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>
&gt; I also don&#39;t think burning the value is going to dissuade anyone f=
rom going<br>
&gt; down that route. I don&#39;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--