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 b
>
> 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
On Nov 17, 2014 7:39 AM, "Pieter Wuille" 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 s
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
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
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 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 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
> 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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 mont
16 matches
Mail list logo
