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
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A516B11A1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com
[209.85.217.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CE4A19F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id bc4so98557884lbc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:16:32 -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=KSA0/8IGLTgi/4Vb5g7AWAtOAf96w5XaOMEj2xTGq44=;
b=sQCyDdXJoux4w0nRNFosPXiLik6ABzdJReHXdOkGo7DQk75YMSZ+D5vWHzcQ5EtiNr
6/iicQRSleRc/JySplvPQxwCDBY47LYz1YSPjNHbGiZKtmjA+AEE8DaCVH2TpodB69ox
uuvMj6k+D7UqZYAzQYeMZ9qURVzhceLTxugYDHuXCukocuuao3J/MR2J/I6K3B+Z8cS4
DfyU1XxBG7p7PntAuUYB7NfbVFUeEM5xtat1F6st7lNniuRwAb0qnaMqbA8WPCI6KOhS
4Va26wa4eI/qrrUfPIJPbktFB/UehoH3YicDwgN/ASMazGmqVh//WKyKNiTiZZBEB0wF
HnYQ==
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=KSA0/8IGLTgi/4Vb5g7AWAtOAf96w5XaOMEj2xTGq44=;
b=WD8Zf1jTwQz6SSHtAXo+5HZjGIerzN21/P8ugEKKyHbRupZYNol6RESilPRLKTP+fE
Sw1e035Wsva5V8J6RGEHYXOLHbl+VanrowllSKZkxIlQpW1Ekx9DnfLfHLB9eTHjnXmX
tTGJ8pwZlJGyCiEegbO5zDGRDGtSMs+35vXk3+hq4d4UuZrViMvSOx97lUGOpZJg8biG
PgwzStoBQyBIX4P5T6UhaTeN+tdxLjeM7tevL3qn6/h5QK0pjUls6e6HR4vQOl5zQHEA
MmUzj6qyKGEGBl2PISCOqoOQhnM3gkPG4JRjFlCPYFuI0AHnFMKhyee+BXd7uyYP/LRB
FQqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQlodJaXo6S9PMZIDQAK5oHR+jDrYMjYPJJ0uE7vAzxtQcBZW1rLNI2f91XHmgBRKR9/c0+zZvB0vxsBg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.200.195 with SMTP id ju3mr11842384lbc.13.1454433390322;
Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.115.4.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.115.4.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160202170356.GC18604@muck>
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGcHOzw88za1m6uJY9MBO2X=3psNk667FyBOHz2XCPO3ABbcRw@mail.gmail.com>
<201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGcHOzwec-eoG-uZzXY2pb=VzQ98EvnijvxrcsrFYgKi2HQ_uw@mail.gmail.com>
<56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com>
<CAGcHOzybd3fgmdZwdMjq36O4-dXUMcdpdV0+jovTSiAtzFdGUg@mail.gmail.com>
<20160202170356.GC18604@muck>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:16:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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, 02 Feb 2016 17:16:33 -0000
--001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the
> > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust
value,
> > it makes no sense to object to it.
>
> I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard
> requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP
> document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby
> wallet vendors to implement it.
>
> While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature
> itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression
> that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.
I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about
this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself,
in the hope you take the concerns into account.
These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a
BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally
dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.
Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement
it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.
--
Pieter
--001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr">On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the<br>
> > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust value,<br>
> > it makes no sense to object to it.<br>
><br>
> I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard<br>
> requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP<br>
> document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby<br>
> wallet vendors to implement it.<br>
><br>
> While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature<br>
> itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression<br>
> that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself, in the hope you take the concerns into account.</p>
<p dir="ltr">These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f--
|
