Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-20 Thread Jean-Pierre Rupp
Agree, There are many legitimate uses for a larger OP_RETURN, and application developers are already complaining that the current size is not enough. It is about adding value to the blockchain. I know it can grow the blockchain faster, but so far at 40 bytes Bitcoin hasn't experienced death

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-18 Thread Btc Drak
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-18 Thread Chris Pacia
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,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-18 Thread Flavien Charlon
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Wladimir
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Pieter Wuille
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.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Adam Back
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Flavien Charlon
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Pieter Wuille
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Jorge Timón
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com 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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Chris Pacia
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-17 Thread Pieter Wuille
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.

[Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-16 Thread Flavien Charlon
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-16 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:21:27 PM Flavien Charlon wrote: 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,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-16 Thread Jorge Timón
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-16 Thread Jorge Timón
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size

2014-11-16 Thread Alan Reiner
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