From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WgfIg-0005aO-Aj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.174; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WgfIe-0003vW-Gr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n15so2257536lbi.33 for ; Sat, 03 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.3.202 with SMTP id e10mr48705lae.76.1399144113860; Sat, 03 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Sat, 3 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53653B90.4070401@monetize.io> References: <218332ea-948d-4af0-b4c5-ced83f25d734@email.android.com> <53653B90.4070401@monetize.io> Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (gmaxwell[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: 1WgfIe-0003vW-Gr Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN? 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: Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 -0000 On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to > minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes > minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a > single OP_RETURN. In this case it's not a question extra txouts, its a question of additional pushes. Assuming you didn't get the push overhead for free, the only issue I see with that off the cuff is extra complexity in the IsStandard rule... but really, why? Your application already needs to define the meaning of the data=E2=80=94 what point is there in making your hash commitment less uniform with the rest of the network?