From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XqJZv-0005jg-4V
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XqJZu-0000Ar-BN
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hl2so2000037igb.17
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.43.225 with SMTP id z1mr24385095igl.29.1416220233051;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.169.99 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:30:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:30:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAW+dKytucOCyR6-=wfUP_im9cZJaGu8nuhp8vGYX8Qdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
	(laanwj[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: 1XqJZu-0000Ar-BN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:30:39 -0000

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon
<flavien.charlon@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