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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Xq4or-0008HI-Nb for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:45:05 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Xq4oq-0003V3-Ad for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:45:05 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi2so2198500wib.17 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:44:58 -0800 (PST) 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JuqgHhrPOtPlmVgmCetofWvTLylRZ9hZ8O9VMmJZalA=; b=I2a2QQEgRxwqFw+JhqCT6Ga+FPozQ0j/J5VtybyKH35enpbcIvi/XzyOS2W/pcPb4g zUPZMv/3Qx+DCdCFKRrTy3l1RC9L6vrdCJ85jdyS+hj5rBldJti98jdIj6R8cIRL82Ww pQHhI+VFuwu/ehLRLaWvD+N+6B9r1sAl5nRIIsOZK9xLNtVt0TQn1xDqPFeg8Mu/JpBx d5kQ6BlEtv0LUlDluCrrrQDXshgEEkB2VXzMk2OyBt3HUWjDk7deiNDdIUtiHznyzCw4 Qdu8RJxnbz7gE2BRea46TFP6crMg/y/jarIGX+Urz2gfP7gU3i//8gCKljmkhgAYqwSY mlBg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmexA4Jh/DHYGix8UBHN5yEhS6F7yK1KPdYp35ILDktr1aVz65J1OtUiOxqkgdcMDsIPdFO MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.150.138 with SMTP id ui10mr25226156wib.32.1416163498195; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.19.38 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:44:58 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [92.251.101.114] In-Reply-To: <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:44:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1Xq4oq-0003V3-Ad Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Flavien Charlon 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: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:45:05 -0000 I agree with Luke, we can endlessly discuss the "best defaults" like the default size allowed for OP_RETURN, minimum fees, anti-dust policies, first-seen vs replace-by-fee, etc; but the fact is that policies depend on miners. Unfortunately most miners and pools are quite apathetic when it comes to configure their own policy. In my opinion the best we can do is to make it easier for miners to implement their own policies by abstracting out those parts of the code. Pull requests like #5071 and #5114 are steps in that direction. So if you're interested in having more miners accepting 80 bytes OP_RETURN transactions, I suggest you invest some time reviewing and testing those PRs. Although this wasn't its main purpose, separating script/standard was also a little step in the same direction.