Not infallible as in "somehow put it in there by accident" or as in "put it in there on purpose, but later on changed his mind"?
Post by Badger
Where does Satoshi positively affirm 0 sat tx? The code snippet (what I can see from shit crop) looks like basic error handling. The absence of negation does not imply affirmation. The error handling is to prevent exploitable code paths, not document network rules.
275 957 sat
What the chain says
- Block
- 957 719
- Time
- 2026-07-13T18:39:58Z
- Signer
- 1CSTsZaRufaiCozKZKgseTCrU6uGFLtWjT
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1CSTsZaRufaiCozKZKgseTCrU6uGFLtWjT VerifiedReplies (3)
What you say is true, but only for this snippet alone.
Across the codebase, at every layer where an output value gets validated, zero is never singled out and excluded, and in at least one canonical restatement of the rule (MoneyRange), zero is explicitly written in as the boundary.
MoneyRange's 0 <= nValue isn't an absence of a rule, it's a positively stated rule that includes zero.
271 646 sat
I'd have to see the code myself with full context. Is it not just a parse check for assigning the value to an unsigned int for example. Despite that, regardless of code as I initially stated Satoshi isn't infallible and is plenty capable of introducing error.
That's the point. It doesn't look like an error at all. So not being infallible in this case would have to mean that he did it on purpose but changed his mind later on.