From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XqCqU-0002N5-JK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.174; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XqCqT-0006nL-RG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c9so4748701qcz.5 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.29.196 with SMTP id r4mr31343022qac.12.1416194352456; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-69-143-221-64.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.221.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 36sm33224620qgn.10.2014.11.16.19.19.11 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5469692F.9030702@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:19:11 -0500 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XqCqT-0006nL-RG Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 -0000 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.