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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1U5JsT-0002TG-2F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:42:45 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1U5JsR-00021B-Je
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:42:45 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s43so275908wey.21
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:42:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.80 with SMTP id j16mr4990883wiv.5.1360690957421; Tue,
12 Feb 2013 09:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.176.164 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:42:37 -0800 (PST)
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
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1U5JsR-00021B-Je
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: empty scriptPubKeys and OP_RETURN
for marking unspendable txouts
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:42:45 -0000
--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"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>>=
</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'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'd be more comfortable using either OP_FALSE or OP_INVALIDOPCODE =
for the "provably unspendable" transaction.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>RE: anyone-can-spend transactions: =A0Th=
inking aloud... I wonder if we might inadvertently cause "spend storms=
" 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--
|
