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 7CB20E65 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:24:00 +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 2935463 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:24:00 +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 01F1438A9923; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:23:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:tobypadilla@gmail.com::NqIHz7xGGbO1sCrm:9C1t X-Hashcash: 1:25:160126:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::xM2r1N8LD=ArtBns:erTuf From: Luke Dashjr To: Toby Padilla Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:23:13 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201601260312.25248.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: <201601260323.14993.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 03:24:00 -0000 On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:17:12 AM Toby Padilla wrote: > I don't think every application of OP_RETURN could be classified as "spam". Perhaps not, but in this context I cannot think of any non-spam use cases. Use cases should come before changes to support them. > I also don't think burning the value is going to dissuade anyone from going > down that route. I don't think lost value is better for anyone. Lost value is better because it has a cost to the spammer, and deflates the rest of the bitcoins. Luke