On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon
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 mon
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alan Reiner wrote:
>
> On 11/16/2014 02:04 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> I remember people asking in #bitcoin-dev "Does anyone know any use
>> case for greater sizes OP_RETURNs?" and me answering "I do not know of
>> any use cases that require bigger sizes".
>
> For re
It seems to me that people maybe arriving at the idea that they should
put transaction data in the blockchain for three related reasons: a)
its there and its convenient; and b) they are thinking about permanent
storage and being able to recover from backup using a master seed to a
bip32 address-set
> My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to
use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel
The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism
is Counterparty, and limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't prevent them
from doing so. In fact th
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Flavien Charlon
wrote:
>> My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use
>> the blockchain as a convenient transport channel
>
> The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism
> is Counterparty, and limiting
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Flavien Charlon
wrote:
> Storing only a hash
> is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough
> to build something interesting.
No, storing only a hash is enough for ALL timestamping applications.
If you need to broadcast more data th
On 11/17/2014 06:20 AM, Adam Back wrote:
> b) backup: the blockchain is not an efficient reliable generic backup
> mechanism because its broadcast. there are cheaper and relatively
> simple ways to get end2end secure backup, the main challenge of which
> is having secure keys and not forgetting t
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Chris Pacia wrote:
> If users wishes to use stealth addresses with out of band communication, the
> benefits of HD would largely be lost and they would be back to making
> regular backups -- this time after every transaction rather than every 100.
That is inevita
8 matches
Mail list logo
