From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:31:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OWYmi+4jVO8kKB1EBT7mYhPE=MNf6JvNVYteVfZ24qqkg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF5CFkh4DWE6Ca-5LFrgkGxWgYqqJdEdv+JZ+3wp+0eTm_vqCw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2245 bytes --]
You could have a timelocked transaction that has a zero value input (and
other non-zero inputs). If the SF happened, that transaction would become
unspendable.
The keys to the outputs may be lost or the co-signer may refuse to
cooperate.
There seems to be some objections to long term timelocked transactions.
If someone asked me about it, I would recommend that any timelocked
transactions should very carefully make sure that they use forms that are
popular.
I think the fairest rule would be that any change which makes some
transactions invalid should be opt-in and only apply to new transaction
version numbers.
If you create a timelocked transactions with an undefined version number,
then you have little to complain about.
If the version number is defined and in-use, then transactions should not
suddenly lose validity.
A refusal to commit to that makes long term locktime use much more risky.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:54 AM, CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As long as an unspendable outputs (OP_RETURN outputs for example) with
> amount=0 are still allowed I don't see it being an issue for anything.
>
> On Sep 5, 2017 2:52 PM, "Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This is not a priority, not very important either.
>> Right now it is possible to create 0-value outputs that are spendable
>> and thus stay in the utxo (potentially forever). Requiring at least 1
>> satoshi per output doesn't really do much against a spam attack to the
>> utxo, but I think it would be slightly better than the current
>> situation.
>>
>> Is there any reason or use case to keep allowing spendable outputs
>> with null amounts in them?
>>
>> If not, I'm happy to create a BIP with its code, this should be simple.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3456 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-07 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-05 21:51 Jorge Timón
2017-09-06 22:20 ` Tier Nolan
2017-09-06 23:54 ` CryptAxe
2017-09-07 1:29 ` Adam Back
2017-09-07 3:41 ` CryptAxe
2017-09-07 9:56 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2017-09-07 10:31 ` Tier Nolan [this message]
2017-09-07 18:00 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-09 21:11 ` Jorge Timón
2017-09-13 9:24 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-13 9:34 ` Gregory Maxwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAE-z3OWYmi+4jVO8kKB1EBT7mYhPE=MNf6JvNVYteVfZ24qqkg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=tier.nolan@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox