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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WgwQd-0004QZ-6P for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WgwQc-0006av-BG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi2so202390wib.5 for ; Sun, 04 May 2014 06:25:56 -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=TWGEDocY1S6Ui297Xaj8rwpiDpw2ZcoH8iTR9yRhK58=; b=F2gSF3PAJdR5tJg5FghIMB2PjvZfcrLyP+ZgJhPr8v4WXoSqknuQjzVRJf7g3nb7hv Oo/ObLEwBPveR1SQw9S2zB/2sIagVVHaFxeWFQnm05s0UxVQLnRrpLiqsLhNdEtg/6uk xaERGmb9zaSVggLPtR9XnLH2ZWwrLe6Xm+VfuUkVKKHwyCG3FZrF8wobnzLb+WJQMHtd BEZbv4llrsJk0og6i9Rg8+mjG9muAbzOqVTG17w+NH6DaCYUk53//eI88W0ibGRoCmRe EPMf9OWV/aVLjlFLWbPlu1kOXK1fANXSpuPOuOjeQ3Iwb7nyyjJaVjC+awBx8gE6rBZ0 0Dpw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQLW5f84snJuhgK59ggsGS5BZd1Ls9FJGIKB5g2SAYv5GrRG9bjOlzqAkqSM41iZ9o16fr X-Received: by 10.194.171.198 with SMTP id aw6mr23163146wjc.23.1399209955874; Sun, 04 May 2014 06:25:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.243.138 with HTTP; Sun, 4 May 2014 06:25:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53654057.1080105@monetize.io> References: <218332ea-948d-4af0-b4c5-ced83f25d734@email.android.com> <53653B90.4070401@monetize.io> <53654057.1080105@monetize.io> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 09:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach 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 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: 1WgwQc-0006av-BG 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: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 -0000 On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > Is it more complex? The current implementation using template matching > seems more complex than `if script.vch[0] == OP_RETURN && > script.vch.size() < 42` Not much more complex. The template matches a two-chunk script with OP_RETURN + one pushdata (or just OP_RETURN with no push). The pushdata is further limited to MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY bytes. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/