Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com 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 OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't prevent them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs which is worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store much more than 40 bytes. For Open Assets https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol, we need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, FTP, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to hardcode the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is not enough to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to build something interesting. I've counted the number of OP_RETURN outputs in the blockchain for the month of October 2014. There were 1,674 OP_RETURNs for a span of 4,659 blocks. Assuming they were all 40 bytes (the average is probably less than half of that), that means an increase of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering a 1 MB block, that's about 0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN data in average. Increasing to 80 bytes will have a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements, while being extremely useful for many use cases where a hash only is not enough. While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block explorer[2]). Refs: [1] http://counterparty.io/news/celebrating-10-transaction-on-the-counterparty-network/ [2] http://blockscan.com/ -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Nov 17, 2014 7:39 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote: That is inevitable for any wallet that offers any functionality beyond just maintaining a balance and the ability to send coins. In particular, anything that wishes to list previous transaction (with timestamps, history, metadata, messages sent using t What HD wallets (or any type of deterministic derivation scheme) offer is the fact that you can separate secret data and public data. You only need one safe backup of the master secret key - all the rest can at most result in privacy loss and not in lost coins. -- Pieter I agree but right now wallets not using stealth will only lose metadata, not coins, if their computer crashes and they have the seed backed up. But if a user wants to upgrade to stealth, they then risk losing metadata AND coins if they either didn't manually back up after every transaction or use a centralized cloud backup service. That's if OP_RETURN is not utilized for storage. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block explorer[2]). Sure, but even if they are not permitted to store their data in OP_RETURN, they will still store it in the blockchain in bare multisig outputs, so it's not contributing to an overhead (in fact, it would consume less space in the blockchain if they used OP_RETURN). On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com 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 OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't prevent them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs which is worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store much more than 40 bytes. For Open Assets https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol, we need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, FTP, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to hardcode the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is not enough to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to build something interesting. I've counted the number of OP_RETURN outputs in the blockchain for the month of October 2014. There were 1,674 OP_RETURNs for a span of 4,659 blocks. Assuming they were all 40 bytes (the average is probably less than half of that), that means an increase of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering a 1 MB block, that's about 0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN data in average. Increasing to 80 bytes will have a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements, while being extremely useful for many use cases where a hash only is not enough. While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block explorer[2]). Refs: [1] http://counterparty.io/news/celebrating-10-transaction-on-the-counterparty-network/ [2] http://blockscan.com/ -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@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 -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com 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 reference, there was a brief time where I was irritated that the size had been reduced to 40 bytes, because I had an application where I wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN, and you're going to need at least 64 bytes for that. Unfortunately I can't remember now what that application was, so it's difficult for me to argue for it. But I don't think that's an unreasonable use case: sending a payment with a signature, essentially all timestamped in the blockchain. You can still send the signature out of band (for example using the payment protocol), and just have the transaction commit to a hash of that signature (or message in general), either using an OP_RETURN output to store the hash, or using the pay-to-contract scheme that Jorge mentioned above. That has exactly the same timestamping properties. My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel, rather than just for data that the world needs to see to validate it. I'd rather encourage solutions that don't require additional data there, which in many cases (but not all) is perfectly possible. -- Pieter -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
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 and want that logic to extend to the extra features; c) they are thinking out of band, but they think they are forced to send the data there in order to achieve atomicity. I think the data that is sent on the blockchain is design-compressed minimal necessary to achieve transaction integrity, and its important for scalability that we keep it that way. About the rationales for using that scarce scalability impacting channel: a) convenience: is not a great reason to my mind. there are lots of channels: email, web forms, point2point various transports NFC, TCP, HTTP for payment protocol or extensions or new protocols. I think there could be a need for a reliable privacy preserving store and forward decentralised infrastructure to act as a channel for such purposes. Until then email could be pretty convenient, if you dont get the message due to spam filter etc ask them to resend. Or a web storage locker related to the app. 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 them. bitcoin already has that covered as its a central requirement of blockchain security. If you want to archive your payment protocol receipts store them on some cloud storage service or disk encrypted with related keys. for example tahoe-lafs is optimised for the decentralised long-term storage kind of use. c) atomicity. as an example application requiring atomicity that may use op_return stealth addresses where if the stealth auxiliary message was sent out of band, then if message is lost, and the sender didnt keep it or cant be relied on to care, then the money could be permanently lost to both parties. It occurred to me recently the kind of use requiring atomicity as stealth address in c) can be achieved by sending both the extra message (the stealth packet) AND the signed bitcoin transaction over the reliable store forward (eg email for now). Then the recipient can do the calculations involving the auxiliary message and payment message, and relay the message to the blockchain IFF they receive the message (and chose to accept it). If they dont receive the message they can ask for it to be resent. And if the payment is unclaimed the sender still owns it and can double-spend to avoid risk of later spending in their replacement message, or double-spend to self if the recipient declines the payment. This has privacy, efficiency and SPV advantages over sending to the blockchain. I think we could make a case that as a design principle auxiliary data could do with a bitcoin-related but separate reliable store and forward channel, as email has been sufficiently spammed to end up with loss of reliability. So I think a payment message transport would be good here: invoices receipts, and other things necessary for applications, transaction disputes, records for normal p2p trades and business functions reliable store and forward substrate with decentralisation privacy. For email the existing mechanism with closest semantics, add-on privacy features exist: mixmaster, nymservers, webmail + encryption, webmail over Tor etc for privacy related uses. Slow transports can offer better security than interactive transports. Adam On 17 November 2014 10:35, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com 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 reference, there was a brief time where I was irritated that the size had been reduced to 40 bytes, because I had an application where I wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN, and you're going to need at least 64 bytes for that. Unfortunately I can't remember now what that application was, so it's difficult for me to argue for it. But I don't think that's an unreasonable use case: sending a payment with a signature, essentially all timestamped in the blockchain. You can still send the signature out of band (for example using the payment protocol), and just have the transaction commit to a hash of that signature (or message in general), either using an OP_RETURN output to store the hash, or using the pay-to-contract scheme that Jorge mentioned above. That has exactly the same timestamping properties. My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use the blockchain as a convenient transport
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
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 they use multi-sig outputs which is worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store much more than 40 bytes. For Open Assets https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol, we need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, FTP, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to hardcode the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is not enough to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to build something interesting. I've counted the number of OP_RETURN outputs in the blockchain for the month of October 2014. There were 1,674 OP_RETURNs for a span of 4,659 blocks. Assuming they were all 40 bytes (the average is probably less than half of that), that means an increase of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering a 1 MB block, that's about 0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN data in average. Increasing to 80 bytes will have a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements, while being extremely useful for many use cases where a hash only is not enough. Flavien On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com 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 reference, there was a brief time where I was irritated that the size had been reduced to 40 bytes, because I had an application where I wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN, and you're going to need at least 64 bytes for that. Unfortunately I can't remember now what that application was, so it's difficult for me to argue for it. But I don't think that's an unreasonable use case: sending a payment with a signature, essentially all timestamped in the blockchain. You can still send the signature out of band (for example using the payment protocol), and just have the transaction commit to a hash of that signature (or message in general), either using an OP_RETURN output to store the hash, or using the pay-to-contract scheme that Jorge mentioned above. That has exactly the same timestamping properties. My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel, rather than just for data that the world needs to see to validate it. I'd rather encourage solutions that don't require additional data there, which in many cases (but not all) is perfectly possible. -- Pieter -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com 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 OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't prevent them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs which is worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store much more than 40 bytes. It wasn't limited to stop them from using it. It was limited to avoid giving others the impression that OP_RETURN was intended for data storage. For the intended purpose (making a transaction commit to some external data) a 32-byte hash + 8 byte id is more than sufficient. For Open Assets, we need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, FTP, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to hardcode the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is not enough to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to build something interesting. Do you really need that data published to everyone? You're at the very least exposing yourself to censorship, and (depending on the design) potentially decreased privacy for your users. I would expect that for most colored coin applications, just having the color transfer information in external data sent directly to the receiver with transactions committing to it should suffice. -- Pieter -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
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 them. bitcoin already has that covered as its a central requirement of blockchain security. If you want to archive your payment protocol receipts store them on some cloud storage service or disk encrypted with related keys. for example tahoe-lafs is optimised for the decentralised long-term storage kind of use. This is my main concern in the context of stealth addresses. I intend to start a larger discussion on stealth addresses, but I wont hijack the tread. Of course it's easy to send the necessary data out of band as opposed to OP_RETURN. The problem is if you do that the transaction cannot not be recovered from seed. We've been fairly successful in transitioning to HD wallets and avoiding the need to make regular wallet backups. 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. There are only a couple options in such cases: 1) The user could send the payment to an addresses that is derived from seed, but now you're using even /more/ storage space than you would by just using OP_RETURN. 2) The user can backup after every transaction, which nobody wants to do. 3) The user could use some form of a cloud backup service and place trust in them that their servers wont go down and lose their coins. None of those options are really that appealing. OP_RETURN seems like the best alternative to me, at least for that use case. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com 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 inevitable for any wallet that offers any functionality beyond just maintaining a balance and the ability to send coins. In particular, anything that wishes to list previous transaction (with timestamps, history, metadata, messages sent using the payment protocol, ...) needs backups. What HD wallets (or any type of deterministic derivation scheme) offer is the fact that you can separate secret data and public data. You only need one safe backup of the master secret key - all the rest can at most result in privacy loss and not in lost coins. -- Pieter -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
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, so I think it might be time to discuss increasing the limit. There are a number of proposals: 1. Allow two OP_RETURN outputs per transaction (PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5075) 2. Increase the default maximum payload size from 40 bytes to 80 bytes ( PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5286) Note that the maximum can be configured already through the 'datacarriersize' option - this is just changing the default. 3. Make the maximum OP_RETURN payload size proportional to the number of outputs of the transaction 4. A combination of the above 3 sounds the most interesting, and 2 would be the second best. 1 is also good to have as long as the space budget is shared between the two outputs. Can we discuss this and agree on a plan? Thanks, Flavien -- Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7. Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month. Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications. Take corrective actions from your mobile device. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
I agree with Luke, we can endlessly discuss the best defaults like the default size allowed for OP_RETURN, minimum fees, anti-dust policies, first-seen vs replace-by-fee, etc; but the fact is that policies depend on miners. Unfortunately most miners and pools are quite apathetic when it comes to configure their own policy. In my opinion the best we can do is to make it easier for miners to implement their own policies by abstracting out those parts of the code. Pull requests like #5071 and #5114 are steps in that direction. So if you're interested in having more miners accepting 80 bytes OP_RETURN transactions, I suggest you invest some time reviewing and testing those PRs. Although this wasn't its main purpose, separating script/standard was also a little step in the same direction. -- Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7. Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month. Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications. Take corrective actions from your mobile device. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
As an aside, the decision to make it 40 bytes made sense because it is enough for timestamping. In fact, you can do cheaper and even secret (and thus impossible to censor by miners) timestamping using pay-to-contract [1], which uses exactly 0 extra bytes in your transaction and the blockchain. 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. I'm aware that so called proof of publication is not equivalent to timestamping, but I wasn't aware at the moment (and I don't think it's very interesting but that's obviously only my opinion, embedded systems developers will disagree). [1] Here's a video explaining pay-to-contract in the context of invoicing as a use case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwyALGlG33Q Here's a generic working implementation: https://github.com/Blockstream/contracthashtool On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote: I agree with Luke, we can endlessly discuss the best defaults like the default size allowed for OP_RETURN, minimum fees, anti-dust policies, first-seen vs replace-by-fee, etc; but the fact is that policies depend on miners. Unfortunately most miners and pools are quite apathetic when it comes to configure their own policy. In my opinion the best we can do is to make it easier for miners to implement their own policies by abstracting out those parts of the code. Pull requests like #5071 and #5114 are steps in that direction. So if you're interested in having more miners accepting 80 bytes OP_RETURN transactions, I suggest you invest some time reviewing and testing those PRs. Although this wasn't its main purpose, separating script/standard was also a little step in the same direction. -- Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7. Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month. Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications. Take corrective actions from your mobile device. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
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 reference, there was a brief time where I was irritated that the size had been reduced to 40 bytes, because I had an application where I wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN, and you're going to need at least 64 bytes for that. Unfortunately I can't remember now what that application was, so it's difficult for me to argue for it. But I don't think that's an unreasonable use case: sending a payment with a signature, essentially all timestamped in the blockchain. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
