1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1WI4ia-0003zS-Id
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:48 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WI4iZ-0008MV-AK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:48 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E963C1080C8A;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:38 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.2; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
<530B8000.1070801@monetize.io> <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at>
In-Reply-To: <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201402242313.39891.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1WI4iZ-0008MV-AK
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On OP_RETURN in upcoming 0.9 release
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, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:48 -0000
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:06:30 PM Andreas Petersson wrote:
> Regarding 80 bytes vs smaller: The objectives should be that if you are
> determined to put some extra data in the blockchain, OP_RETURN should be
> the superior alternative. if a user can include more data with less fees
> using a multisig TX, then this will happen.
>
> eventually dust-limit rules will not be the deciding factor here, since
> i suspect block propagation times will have a stronger effect on
> effective fees. therefore a slightly larger payload than the biggest
> multisig TX is the right answer. - that would be >= 64x3 bytes = 192 bytes.
> (this is my understanding of how large a 3-of-3 multisig tx can be, plus
> 1.5 bits encoded in the "n" parameter)
Perhaps I ought to redo my data carrier configuration option as a max size?
Luke
|
