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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mark@monetize.io>) id 1WHzN5-00027e-Q3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:31:15 +0000
Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WHzN1-00051V-0r
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:31:15 +0000
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rq2so6815283pbb.23
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:31:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent
:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=IY97NvaDcD3po+2wIGUApJOcH1rTBuD+lxuSpCBIqMc=;
b=b02vB38CKE4vPjH2Qj4+TbeYH2CmZxoASQajPanKwM5eimie5luYxHo+r3ua3rnx6v
JAX9JHBbwbyBuLn9JPS+uns1qPUdYB2HpaLBKU9QxD7CnE8abTjC3A3KgHnkA+F/113O
DhCKV1aez7wMrPUctrcl6qJRh2+yAYWhyg7+ZgBMGb4fdTYADkEq09LjoSU1pDrzgmRr
ESlhvJOmLEyhingtzfD2oPmkdNZZKcKzWhbFStDU9Kji14YkhN+CBwhXiwoOyC4ElELq
RBlLxEeb9m5hWDdOCZrdsJ4ZJmFwfOPDmNEuhTu6evkijwsUFiHi/ZbzFSq2gaVFLXGJ
+AFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYCeyBONZJbQGYZfasyuiPstBKdG60KTzYN5U2vQl5mcT2Gx7jQdRIyF189P69vzY3ZOc5
X-Received: by 10.68.40.138 with SMTP id x10mr1064470pbk.8.1393262597527;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.127.231] (50-0-36-232.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net.
[50.0.36.232])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ou9sm1843811pbc.30.2014.02.24.09.23.14
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <530B8000.1070801@monetize.io>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:23:12 -0800
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
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.
X-Headers-End: 1WHzN1-00051V-0r
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 17:31:15 -0000
Given our standardization on 128-bit security / 256-bit primitives, I
can't think of any crypto related data payload which requires more than
40 bytes. Even DER encoded compressed public keys will fit in there. A
signature won't fit, but why would you need one in there?
There's no need to design for 64-byte hashes, and the 80-char line
length comparison is a good point. As an Engineer I'd want to have a
little more room as a 32-byte hash or EC point + 8 bytes identifying
prefix data is the bare minimum, but it is also very important that we
send a message: This is for payment related applications like stealth
addresses only. Don't burden everybody by putting your junk on the block
chain.
On 02/24/2014 08:39 AM, Wladimir wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com>> wrote:
>
> A common IRC proposal seems to lean towards reducing that from 80.
> I'll leave it to the crowd to argue about size from there. I do think
> regular transactions should have the ability to include some metadata.
>
>
> I'd be in favor of bringing it down to 40 for 0.9.
>
> That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identifier><32 byte hash>.
>
> 80, as the standard line length, is almost asking for "insert your
> graffiti message here". I also see no need for 64 bytes hashes such as
> SHA512 in the context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security
> (at most) in the first place.
>
> And if this is not abused, these kind of transactions become popular,
> and more space is really needed, the limit can always be increased in a
> future version.
>
> Wladimir
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool.
> Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer
> Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports.
> Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
