Only an absolute retard would support 0 sat utxo. If you want a 0sat tx knock yourself out, just don't expect it to be on chain. That's some commie shit.
277 296 sat
Post by Y
Well, someone put it in the code. Not by accident, but willingly and knowingly. Is that the retard you are referring to? Serious question.
What the chain says
- Block
- 957 687
- Time
- 2026-07-13T13:53:18Z
- Signer
- 1GwecezoL8jciHU2Ysyupxrnv18JMGAV6R
- 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
1GwecezoL8jciHU2Ysyupxrnv18JMGAV6R VerifiedReplies (12)
BSV is still fake bitcoin.
It's hilarious that everyone is arguing over which Bitcoin is the real one, and none of them are 🤣
I don't operate under the cult like assumption that Satoshi is infallible.
549 461 sat
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"?
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 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
Facts no one is.
Big Wright guy by the way.
Don't you just have to account for every possibility? I can't see the economics working with zero or negative