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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4E31144
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E63B12C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F3B238A9783;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:14:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::49ppumREu7UMHQ9S:aghZQ
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:pieter.wuille@gmail.com::f0XhaEKc+56TIuux:sYhW
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:pete@petertodd.org::SLHkbOIuIP=gnU2r:Buyl
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:14:17 +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>
<20160202170356.GC18604@muck>
<CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBipDyJC7_UPE8p0oSxaHOC3m5aus562Mc_s=wBkeMh5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602021914.18846.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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 19:14:33 -0000
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:16:30 PM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
Agree with both Peter and Pieter. Note that BIP 74 was assigned to this
proposal last Friday.
Luke
|
