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 DBDBB1688 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-1857040135.protonmail.ch (mail-1857040135.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.135]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B3DD621 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 21:22:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1526347355; bh=nU/IFb8KjR5m+65SPedkSW3GrkIDpt5u0vKlWJpv1nA=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=OAdCvx2/TJk7j7ZsH7LgUMMWRvLus2PVtVzKzQ+doKrHsxD50wsdNeIrNecMKxjnY Y4m3u4L+V6I4bbDZ7ak5CsI4yIL5kPBvINHAO1onIo/mg78dZc7iTlNuHwl3cEtOpU BOL+8NiiYgAvKkrS53TJ73KJKqHeUUjlg9Mh04MM= To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org> References: <87po25lmzs.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <201805100227.42217.luke@dashjr.org> Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:32:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making OP_TRUE standard? 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: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:22:38 -0000 Good morning Luke, > (Maybe it should be the first output >=20 > instead of the last... Is there any legitimate reason one would have mult= iple >=20 > such dummy outputs?) None, but how about use of `SIGHASH_SINGLE` flag? If a dummy output is adde= d as the first, would it not require adjustment of the inputs of the transa= ction? In context you are discussing the transaction serialization, though, so per= haps `SIGHASH_SINGLE`, is unaffected? Regards, ZmnSCPxj