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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WgtJR-0002Zy-Ul for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 04 May 2014 10:06:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of pixodegames.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=flavien.charlon@pixodegames.com; helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WgtJQ-0002kV-8U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 04 May 2014 10:06:25 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id gf5so2085335lab.13 for ; Sun, 04 May 2014 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Wmoqa0WEyGN8x4fxGHos7qil6qAN4nt4/Sm2KcifMaA=; b=Bk1yRb6XDNS56a7D8xRktng22+Pjv9Uz0N+hO1q8rxFAV3kH50H8qLg44XAQj4ivRt 9nGsk824geLNOkZwwe9h+lXarHL7h8p0GNCdiT/Jiy6C9EfzteeqSezo+kSAvEBPgodv puU2B7pPLgaZkeI8Qcvj9cAvVsehXKW2sq+S2hJMcouzdkmt0WsI6eHFy4/i8vPwHpVW WqDBoLb/lcszo7QFhRu5BR1PuaXrq4UMs3GWFNrvpLEiNIiGBtUrWyyozEQqVqenh+U5 gmCBlEplsNJEXJLbvkr3v+0jk9t6rwJGkA6uDtGB0lIotDhVp2yJkgLZ6kFMPnSmQ2sg DUZg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkluLGIBAwOVykZmOXXU3doCJpyl/qSe89wWIb+/sQcm/t6Uzw93CRCvE68NKNSxpbYuXAy X-Received: by 10.112.254.163 with SMTP id aj3mr20605120lbd.20.1399197977407; Sun, 04 May 2014 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mw10sm5481779lbb.24.2014.05.04.03.06.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 04 May 2014 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c6so4014971lan.16 for ; Sun, 04 May 2014 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.246.43 with SMTP id xt11mr7014586lac.34.1399197976864; Sun, 04 May 2014 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.185.230 with HTTP; Sun, 4 May 2014 03:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [79.97.126.227] In-Reply-To: References: From: Flavien Charlon Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 11:05:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133a77461bd3804f8902a58 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WgtJQ-0002kV-8U Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: Sun, 04 May 2014 10:06:26 -0000 --001a1133a77461bd3804f8902a58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks, that makes sense, just wanted to make sure this what the problem was. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien Charlon > wrote: > > Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to be > > standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this > being > > rejected? > > The carried data must all be contained within one pushdata. > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > --001a1133a77461bd3804f8902a58 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, that makes sense, just wanted to make sure this wh= at the problem was.


On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Garzik &= lt;jgarzik@bitpay.c= om> wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien= Charlon
<flavien.charlon@coinpr= ism.com> wrote:
> Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to= be
> standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this = being
> rejected?

The carried data must all be contained within one pushdata.

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/

--001a1133a77461bd3804f8902a58--