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
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WI4iN-0006z9-Tg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.48; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WI4iM-0003zn-V1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:35 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gf5so3618550lab.35
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.4.68 with SMTP id i4mr13470700lai.8.1393283608261; Mon,
24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.189.164 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at>
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<530B8000.1070801@monetize.io> <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT6qFHBojoB-teCjF_YAd9TePdQ3+NWnO0dwf9Bv583_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
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
(gmaxwell[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: 1WI4iM-0003zn-V1
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 23:13:36 -0000
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at> 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)
At least there is no ambiguity that such usage is abusive. Adoption of
the practices matters too. Right now I've seen a lot of people
promoting data storage as a virtuous use, and gearing up to directly
store data when a commitment would work.
If it turns out that encouraging people to use hashes is a lost cause
it can always be further relaxed in the future, going the other way is
much harder.
|
