On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
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 cou
On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 11:11:57PM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
> Tier Nolan, right, a new tx version would be required.
>
> I have to look deeper into the CT as sf proposal.
>
> What futures upgrades could this conflict with it's precisely the
> question here. So that vague statement without provid
Tier Nolan, right, a new tx version would be required.
I have to look deeper into the CT as sf proposal.
What futures upgrades could this conflict with it's precisely the
question here. So that vague statement without providing any example
it's not very valuable.
Although TXO commitments are int
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev 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 does
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
Forbidding 0 satoshi outputs (I wasn't actually aware that it was possible,
is 0 satoshi inputs also allowed?) would complicate a divisibility increase
softfork (I'm working on an idea for >= 1 satoshi transactions, but now it
seems like < 1 satoshi transactions would work too).
I don't think it's
After reading
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012194.html
I see that Adam is correct. Unfortunately this SF would make Felix's
confidential transactions
more complicated. The blinding and unblinding transactions would have to
be created with
minimal output value
The pattern used by Felix Weiss' BIP for Confidential Transactions
depends on or is tidier with 0-value outputs.
Adam
On 7 September 2017 at 00:54, CryptAxe via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> As long as an unspendable outputs (OP_RETURN outputs for example) with
> amount=0 are still allowed I don't see i
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.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Is there any reason or use case to keep allowing spendable outputs
> with null amounts in them?
>
Someone could have created a timelocked transaction that depends on a zero
value output.
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 slightl
11 matches
Mail list logo
