📅 Original date posted:2016-01-26
📝 Original message:> 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?
> 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.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:01:13 AM Toby Padilla wrote:
> > > As I explained, none of those reasons apply to PaymentRequests.
> >
> > As they exist today PaymentRequests allow for essentially the same types
> of
> > transactions as non-PaymentRequest based transactions with the limitation
> > that OP_RETURN values must be greater. In that sense they're basically a
> > pre-OP_RETURN environment. OP_RETURN serves a purpose and it can't be
> used
> > with PaymentRequest transactions.
>
> OP_RETURN can be used, but you need to burn coins. I don't see any benefit
> to
> changing that. It is better that coins are burned.
>
> > > I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
> >
> > I think if you think through how you would create an OP_RETURN
> transaction
> > today without this BIP you'll see you need a key at some point if you
> want
> > a zero value.
>
> You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160125/b17c123c/attachment.html>;
Toby Padilla [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m9…huekt
2023-06-07 17:48:09
in reply to nevent1q…37as
Author Public Key
npub1m99yqj0pat7mwzsdczyn28z84ce47adngzqp9kzft4gc3xke52fqqhuektPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:09Event JSON
{
"id": "a0cda5ad5a7a514ea0510ed77c2afb189c88cb77848d009a2d56327ebbed68d1",
"pubkey": "d94a4049e1eafdb70a0dc089351c47ae335f75b3408012d8495d51889ad9a292",
"created_at": 1686160089,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"368032d333e01794ac3e7b97c278de084cce6e6228857d943836fb1a934a5739",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"14d2055e2a5d6db04d8904cb7166806b82198ca30c09c4f76e065f9dcc6aa7e9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-01-26\n📝 Original message:\u003e I don't see any benefit to\nchanging that. It is better that coins are burned.\n\nI think this is our fundamental disagreement. People will burn coins to\nencode data, why allow this when there's a better alternative?\n\n\u003e You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.\n\nCorrect, but with BIP70 that key is in the user's wallet and you can\nconstruct transactions on another machine (thus not needing a key during\nconstruction). Right now there's no way to do the transaction construction\non another machine with zero value OP_RETURNs.\n\nOn Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:01:13 AM Toby Padilla wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e As I explained, none of those reasons apply to PaymentRequests.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e As they exist today PaymentRequests allow for essentially the same types\n\u003e of\n\u003e \u003e transactions as non-PaymentRequest based transactions with the limitation\n\u003e \u003e that OP_RETURN values must be greater. In that sense they're basically a\n\u003e \u003e pre-OP_RETURN environment. OP_RETURN serves a purpose and it can't be\n\u003e used\n\u003e \u003e with PaymentRequest transactions.\n\u003e\n\u003e OP_RETURN can be used, but you need to burn coins. I don't see any benefit\n\u003e to\n\u003e changing that. It is better that coins are burned.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I have no idea what you are trying to say here.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I think if you think through how you would create an OP_RETURN\n\u003e transaction\n\u003e \u003e today without this BIP you'll see you need a key at some point if you\n\u003e want\n\u003e \u003e a zero value.\n\u003e\n\u003e You *always* need a key, to redeem inputs... regardless of values.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160125/b17c123c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "bd778411c296d42d15210bf6e7678f1fa175448572842486a2306986e4b813067f008b5d9d7b6a2be75394266336f188ab288cb2eb401ff9525d36e2494b931b"
}