From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:12:24 +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>
	<201601260304.34013.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGcHOzy9nSTLKjgiV3mDcawJaL-MiTAscSO4Ok0Lz9ysWBoKNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGcHOzy9nSTLKjgiV3mDcawJaL-MiTAscSO4Ok0Lz9ysWBoKNg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
	Protocol
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:07:40 AM Toby Padilla wrote:
> > I don't see any benefit to changing that. It is better that coins are
> > burned.
> 
> I think this is our fundamental disagreement. People will burn coins to
> encode data, why allow this when there's a better alternative?

My point is that there isn't a better alternative. The coins being burned, is 
strictly better than it being gratis.

> > You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.
> 
> Correct, but with BIP70 that key is in the user's wallet and you can
> construct transactions on another machine (thus not needing a key during
> construction). Right now there's no way to do the transaction construction
> on another machine with zero value OP_RETURNs.

This is also a good thing. Spam should not be made easier or cheaper.

Luke