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 B58D9B7E for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:34:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f181.google.com (mail-ua0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D21A7 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:34:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k23so18012782uaf.4 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:34:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Inelar4I8v0YqJ3wTXCIHr0KmOjASQdbCk4Vfh7WYcA=; b=hhswt8iDbCWwTcqv9m3n7wZ4QMLttbnMPoGcp1MdygQ9DBwukXa+e/b8hiOf5451OQ nzks4zE2fFKFpTCQyDfQHNyhMukAoloOtCYdusCjOGS77tq3nWsOQ6/QXpvO1PFBfvty k8MPbruzmoGYx9InkvBlhSl09m7NmbgP0i1yNBQbUMJn79DvJ4k43KUbK2j78yExov3W RGALJ4BsbnyMR1sTJQE3TlR+idDj4I24Ax0OSEzsZW6upgAPXdEIYtAg09XfQ+0buCzf 8t88zHPzEPTsUAfFWFOEItp1Y8mSG8A5UKUO6StvbXTtzFSjv66CaaF89dUFp6suOU40 qA/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Inelar4I8v0YqJ3wTXCIHr0KmOjASQdbCk4Vfh7WYcA=; b=jcQY+hXEKiLrLbNngDT6c3x6X3YREKWcHqyA5zbyPT9J1FdPYbhPajFcuvcCnoqd+y mWXD9uIoGnl0T21H6st4tOgJ+zvjspM9N4IzQ+LEnWOxdDe+HOdFPc7LD6qE6bEI34wD DvfcgepT91KkGdk9OKLJ9SQz2/Prbnce3PYKPRkT43Y8ijVw93qrG6cWR4CcXYmtsDFt 1/qhVCUkF4oUK7bn/P06L8xhAuQNtVCDPCDjE3LO0DSiNR0bKkfXGkEkQ7PjpCAZ+/lJ CWDycEMm3NymkD7BDLV++scFbJw/1IFh5ETbmlRXbU/sznOuuXzrduL6NOksQlj+dMay cLEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUj9YHB45ghny8wGUSGtoyg61QUcz3AmHaGLm3pSLR2hEGH+BYT3 ZuAIIWRLDcC5P4ZHGCFxuAoK8U2ySctZ9BlvlGI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4HqiRuVmPJAGnO5NTbF2KEcEQjV2GdVdcGWtJtLgWYeytVE5x9uR64tSWA75wEtCd8C+Pgzz3yRsn41lMQGuk= X-Received: by 10.176.94.89 with SMTP id a25mr13364038uah.109.1505295277537; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:34:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.146.78 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:34:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170913092434.GA1094@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20170907180014.GA13727@fedora-23-dvm> <20170913092434.GA1094@savin.petertodd.org> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:34:37 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iL0KrIdMut7HOTk8P_CvQUkX3d4 Message-ID: To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:34:38 -0000 On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Quite simply, I just don't think the cost-benefit tradeoff of what you're > proposing makes sense. I agree that dropping zero value outputs is a needless loss of flexibility. In addition to the CT example, something similar could be done for increased precision (nanobitcoin!). Maybe if in the future the value of 1e-8 btc is high enough then an argument could be made that requiring one is a meaningful reduction in a miner's ability to spam up the network... but the argument doesn't fly today... the cost in lost fee income from the spam just totally dwarfs it.