Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XqJZv-0005jg-4V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XqJZu-0000Ar-BN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hl2so2000037igb.17 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.225 with SMTP id z1mr24385095igl.29.1416220233051; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.169.99 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:30:32 +0100 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAW+dKytucOCyR6-=wfUP_im9cZJaGu8nuhp8vGYX8Qdw@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XqJZu-0000Ar-BN Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 -0000 On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The data that can be embedded as part of an OP_RETURN output is currently > limited to 40 bytes. It was initially supposed to be 80 bytes, but got > reduced to 40 before the 0.9 release to err on the side of caution. > > After 9 months, it seems OP_RETURN did not lead to a blockchain catastrophe, Agreed. I'm in favor of increasing OP_RETURN size as well. Don't care about the actual size. (rationale: pruning is going to land soonish, and everything is better than UTXO-polluting methods that encode everything into addresses such as now used by cryptograffiti) Wladimir