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 AD4E31144 for ; 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 ; 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 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Pieter Wuille 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: <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> 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: <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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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