Thanks Peter for your prompt reply.

And now that I think of it you're right - as easy as it is for us to differentiate OP_RETURN outputs that contain the Po.et prefix it would be for miners to block those transactions altogether. Is this what you mean?

Still, a prefix is something we may have to live with for a little while until we can address that issue.

Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow?

El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> escribió:

On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>. At Po.et we
>use
>colored coins
><https://github.com/poetapp/node/blob/3c905bc5dbd3722ad39ac68041d9f2a099e5e84c/src/BlockchainWriter/ClaimController.ts#L101-L110>
>to
>store data on the Bitcoin blockchain with prefix "POET".
>
>I've read in an old version of the OP_RETURN entry of the bitcoin wiki
><https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=OP_RETURN&oldid=62560> that
>*protocols
>wishing to claim OP_RETURN prefixes should use the standard Bitcoin
>Improvement Proposals process*.
>
>That entry seems to have changed recently
><https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN#OP_RETURN_prefixes>, no longer
>stating that we should follow the BIP process, and I haven't been able
>to
>find any existing BIP claiming an OP_RETURN prexif, but for the sake of
>thoroughness I'd like to ask for your help or confirmation here.
>
>Should we actually be using the BIP process to claim a prefix?

It's better if you don't use a prefix at all from a censorship resistance and anonymity perspective; you're application should not require a prefix for technical reasons.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org