MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20170913092434.GA1094@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CABm2gDojDQWMhw8wW1UkRGKtdbby2+6AFFZLPuRcUb7WF_u5qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170907180014.GA13727@fedora-23-dvm>
	<CABm2gDpy3a0vc+4=0a2vFSQ2d1gaAWFkPtzdbXLpNKYFepDU3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170913092434.GA1094@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:34:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT+bfte1PRy4tn0O_cUSBEEKNvGm2+LRBLObgLWcEVuqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with
	amount=0
Precedence: list

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.