From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468B2E8E for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:05:03 +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 0011663 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:05:02 +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 C916038A9923; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:04:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:tobypadilla@gmail.com::coj1OGjnR01CCvHm:bh+WS X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::a/3EIZJaOTlq6qlK:qTMM From: Luke Dashjr To: Toby Padilla Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:04:33 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201601260256.55378.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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: <201601260304.34013.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 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 Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:05:03 -0000 On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:01:13 AM Toby Padilla wrote: > > As I explained, none of those reasons apply to PaymentRequests. > > As they exist today PaymentRequests allow for essentially the same types of > transactions as non-PaymentRequest based transactions with the limitation > that OP_RETURN values must be greater. In that sense they're basically a > pre-OP_RETURN environment. OP_RETURN serves a purpose and it can't be used > with PaymentRequest transactions. OP_RETURN can be used, but you need to burn coins. I don't see any benefit to changing that. It is better that coins are burned. > > I have no idea what you are trying to say here. > > I think if you think through how you would create an OP_RETURN transaction > today without this BIP you'll see you need a key at some point if you want > a zero value. You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values. Luke