From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WHz3N-0000oC-C2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:10:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-we0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WHz3M-0005nJ-Aj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:10:53 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w61so4973959wes.12 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:10:46 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=HHrNL9roE1UCIJKfoj+duC9ZisZOUL0cLWMm2PClZoc=; b=m4WlbPaCvsCbrR7musOhmfmc0GJjXheJkQk7omFkqq3cmiZG4zP1eXSVLpfZlWgY2f WlHJ539ea2eYx0wiSon0ukOaM6hBBrGT2XTWVfTyAftLqHSCwXJeJYrSJe3UZckKwthi w+iSE3VH5UndR0XmV8fBZzjYOomw0j9aHh52Dq3vDB/Asqu/e7NOYBodiNiKrPnhgzap R1hCEC2rnFZjAAMXYZGl1jdPb+/wiYiDuVQzYV7CyLsU5EOgL2gYdWlF/umQQ6GmpDNJ 2TLauDUoazfQ7j6c6+c8JZQN7X9wGsVO1PCputJE8F/R87RZxdXnW+PYAcjKkxmWIUrM tNzA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6rAxpCfzxKkOOAxVPq0I4yr1Vm2SV6lciMZIcEIg6V9VInLnfkexxd5ziWEbcRl74D6sA X-Received: by 10.195.12.5 with SMTP id em5mr7380721wjd.77.1393261846211; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:10:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.82.197 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:10:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:10:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 1WHz3M-0005nJ-Aj 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 17:10:53 -0000 This PR reduces the size to 40 bytes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3737 (Note - this is not intended to close the discussion... please do keep sending in feedback) On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > An update in forthcoming 0.9 release includes a change to make > OP_RETURN standard, permitted a small amount of metadata to be > attached to a transaction: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738 > > There was always going to be some level of controversy attached to > this. However, some issues, perceptions and questions are bubbling > up, and it seemed fair to cover them on the list, not just IRC. > > 1) FAQ: Why 80 bytes of data? This is the leading programmer > question, and it was not really documented well at all. Simple > answer: 2x SHA256 or 1x SHA512, plus some tiny bit of metadata. Some > schemes are of the nature "BOND" rather than just plain hash. > A common IRC proposal seems to lean towards reducing that from 80. > I'll leave it to the crowd to argue about size from there. I do think > regular transactions should have the ability to include some metadata. > > 2) Endorsement of chain data storage. Listening to bitcoin conference > corridor discussions, reading forum posts and the occasional article > have over-simplified the situation to "core devs endorse data storage > over blockchain! let me start uploading my naughty movie collection! > IM over blockchain, woo hoo!" > > Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a way to make data > /less damaging/, not an endorsement of data storage in chain as a good > idea. MasterCoin and other projects were doing -even worse- things, > such as storing data in forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating the > UTXO for eternity. > > It seems reasonable to have a release note to this effect in the 0.9 > release announcement, IMO. > > -- > Jeff Garzik > Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/