From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WI4iN-0006z9-Tg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.48; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WI4iM-0003zn-V1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:35 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gf5so3618550lab.35 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.4.68 with SMTP id i4mr13470700lai.8.1393283608261; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.189.164 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at> References: <530B8000.1070801@monetize.io> <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Andreas Petersson 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 (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: 1WI4iM-0003zn-V1 Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On OP_RETURN in upcoming 0.9 release 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, 24 Feb 2014 23:13:36 -0000 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote: > Regarding 80 bytes vs smaller: The objectives should be that if you are > determined to put some extra data in the blockchain, OP_RETURN should be > the superior alternative. if a user can include more data with less fees > using a multisig TX, then this will happen. > > eventually dust-limit rules will not be the deciding factor here, since > i suspect block propagation times will have a stronger effect on > effective fees. therefore a slightly larger payload than the biggest > multisig TX is the right answer. - that would be >= 64x3 bytes = 192 bytes. > (this is my understanding of how large a 3-of-3 multisig tx can be, plus > 1.5 bits encoded in the "n" parameter) At least there is no ambiguity that such usage is abusive. Adoption of the practices matters too. Right now I've seen a lot of people promoting data storage as a virtuous use, and gearing up to directly store data when a commitment would work. If it turns out that encouraging people to use hashes is a lost cause it can always be further relaxed in the future, going the other way is much harder.