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 A516B11A1 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:16:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CE4A19F for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id bc4so98557884lbc.2 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:16:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KSA0/8IGLTgi/4Vb5g7AWAtOAf96w5XaOMEj2xTGq44=; b=sQCyDdXJoux4w0nRNFosPXiLik6ABzdJReHXdOkGo7DQk75YMSZ+D5vWHzcQ5EtiNr 6/iicQRSleRc/JySplvPQxwCDBY47LYz1YSPjNHbGiZKtmjA+AEE8DaCVH2TpodB69ox uuvMj6k+D7UqZYAzQYeMZ9qURVzhceLTxugYDHuXCukocuuao3J/MR2J/I6K3B+Z8cS4 DfyU1XxBG7p7PntAuUYB7NfbVFUeEM5xtat1F6st7lNniuRwAb0qnaMqbA8WPCI6KOhS 4Va26wa4eI/qrrUfPIJPbktFB/UehoH3YicDwgN/ASMazGmqVh//WKyKNiTiZZBEB0wF HnYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KSA0/8IGLTgi/4Vb5g7AWAtOAf96w5XaOMEj2xTGq44=; b=WD8Zf1jTwQz6SSHtAXo+5HZjGIerzN21/P8ugEKKyHbRupZYNol6RESilPRLKTP+fE Sw1e035Wsva5V8J6RGEHYXOLHbl+VanrowllSKZkxIlQpW1Ekx9DnfLfHLB9eTHjnXmX tTGJ8pwZlJGyCiEegbO5zDGRDGtSMs+35vXk3+hq4d4UuZrViMvSOx97lUGOpZJg8biG PgwzStoBQyBIX4P5T6UhaTeN+tdxLjeM7tevL3qn6/h5QK0pjUls6e6HR4vQOl5zQHEA MmUzj6qyKGEGBl2PISCOqoOQhnM3gkPG4JRjFlCPYFuI0AHnFMKhyee+BXd7uyYP/LRB FQqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQlodJaXo6S9PMZIDQAK5oHR+jDrYMjYPJJ0uE7vAzxtQcBZW1rLNI2f91XHmgBRKR9/c0+zZvB0vxsBg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.200.195 with SMTP id ju3mr11842384lbc.13.1454433390322; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.115.4.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.115.4.134 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:16:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> References: <201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org> <201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org> <56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com> <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:16:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 17:16:33 -0000 --001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. -- Pieter --001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

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.

--
Pieter

--001a11c38d52946d12052acca94f--