MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAGcHOzzde_T3xJwJL2Ehyw7U1FgxEEBJR30VBLdSZMj=W49hSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201601260304.34013.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGcHOzy9nSTLKjgiV3mDcawJaL-MiTAscSO4Ok0Lz9ysWBoKNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201601260312.25248.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:17:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGcHOzw88za1m6uJY9MBO2X=3psNk667FyBOHz2XCPO3ABbcRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Toby Padilla <tobypadilla@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440dfa1ba168052a341fc8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment
	Protocol
Precedence: list

--001a11440dfa1ba168052a341fc8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I don't think every application of OP_RETURN could be classified as "spam".
I also don't think burning the value is going to dissuade anyone from going
down that route. I don't think lost value is better for anyone.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:07:40 AM Toby Padilla wrote:
> > > I don't see any benefit to changing that. It is better that coins are
> > > burned.
> >
> > I think this is our fundamental disagreement. People will burn coins to
> > encode data, why allow this when there's a better alternative?
>
> My point is that there isn't a better alternative. The coins being burned,
> is
> strictly better than it being gratis.
>
> > > You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.
> >
> > Correct, but with BIP70 that key is in the user's wallet and you can
> > construct transactions on another machine (thus not needing a key during
> > construction). Right now there's no way to do the transaction
> construction
> > on another machine with zero value OP_RETURNs.
>
> This is also a good thing. Spam should not be made easier or cheaper.
>
> Luke
>

--001a11440dfa1ba168052a341fc8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t think every application of OP_RETURN could be =
classified as &quot;spam&quot;. I also don&#39;t think burning the value is=
 going to dissuade anyone from going down that route. I don&#39;t think los=
t value is better for anyone.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.=
org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"=
">On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:07:40 AM Toby Padilla wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; I don&#39;t see any benefit to changing that. It is better that c=
oins are<br>
&gt; &gt; burned.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think this is our fundamental disagreement. People will burn coins t=
o<br>
&gt; encode data, why allow this when there&#39;s a better alternative?<br>
<br>
</span>My point is that there isn&#39;t a better alternative. The coins bei=
ng burned, is<br>
strictly better than it being gratis.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt; &gt; You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values=
.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Correct, but with BIP70 that key is in the user&#39;s wallet and you c=
an<br>
&gt; construct transactions on another machine (thus not needing a key duri=
ng<br>
&gt; construction). Right now there&#39;s no way to do the transaction cons=
truction<br>
&gt; on another machine with zero value OP_RETURNs.<br>
<br>
</span>This is also a good thing. Spam should not be made easier or cheaper=
.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11440dfa1ba168052a341fc8--