From 6777e998ac1e8ba37a437c99c1e441fd0605c543 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: dimitris-t Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:47:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Change spelling I think it is better to say 'a RETURN output' than 'an RETURN output' because RETURN is a word, not an acronym, and begins with a consonant sound. If it was an acronym then then it would make sense to say 'an R.E.T.U.R.N. output' because it would start with a vowel sound. If it was OP_RETURN then it would also make sense to say 'an OP_RETURN output' because it would start with a vowel sound. --- ch07.asciidoc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/ch07.asciidoc b/ch07.asciidoc index 801fb848..d9e852c3 100644 --- a/ch07.asciidoc +++ b/ch07.asciidoc @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ RETURN The data portion is limited to 80 bytes and most often represents a hash, such as the output from the SHA256 algorithm (32 bytes). Many applications put a prefix in front of the data to help identify the application. For example, the http://proofofexistence.com[Proof of Existence] digital notarization service uses the 8-byte prefix +DOCPROOF+, which is ASCII encoded as +44 4f 43 50 52 4f 4f 46+ in hexadecimal. -Keep in mind that there is no "unlocking script" that corresponds to +RETURN+ that could possibly be used to "spend" an +RETURN+ output. The whole point of +RETURN+ is that you can't spend the money locked in that output, and therefore it does not need to be held in the UTXO set as potentially spendable—+RETURN+ is _provably un-spendable_. +RETURN+ is usually an output with a zero bitcoin amount, because any bitcoin assigned to such an output is effectively lost forever. If an +RETURN+ is referenced as an input in a transaction, the script validation engine will halt the execution of the validation script and marking the transaction as invalid. The execution of +RETURN+, essentially causes the script to "RETURN" with a FALSE and halt. Thus, if you accidentally reference an +RETURN+ output as an input in a transaction, that transaction is invalid. +Keep in mind that there is no "unlocking script" that corresponds to +RETURN+ that could possibly be used to "spend" a +RETURN+ output. The whole point of +RETURN+ is that you can't spend the money locked in that output, and therefore it does not need to be held in the UTXO set as potentially spendable—+RETURN+ is _provably un-spendable_. +RETURN+ is usually an output with a zero bitcoin amount, because any bitcoin assigned to such an output is effectively lost forever. If a +RETURN+ is referenced as an input in a transaction, the script validation engine will halt the execution of the validation script and marking the transaction as invalid. The execution of +RETURN+, essentially causes the script to "RETURN" with a FALSE and halt. Thus, if you accidentally reference a +RETURN+ output as an input in a transaction, that transaction is invalid. A standard transaction (one that conforms to the +isStandard()+ checks) can have only one +RETURN+ output. However, a single +RETURN+ output can be combined in a transaction with outputs of any other type.