Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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 >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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

[bitcoin-dev] SF proposal: prohibit unspendable outputs with amount=0

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