diff options
author | Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> | 2014-11-19 00:46:51 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2014-11-19 00:47:44 +0000 |
commit | ef3fe9ac888710db47269e1810bdf1a6478725d7 (patch) | |
tree | f96344ffd3c73bad1d9afce6cb6d54e648875246 | |
parent | d3d6fbf3fbd1ed24339b81bddd66e7c83989b9db (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-ef3fe9ac888710db47269e1810bdf1a6478725d7.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-ef3fe9ac888710db47269e1810bdf1a6478725d7.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
-rw-r--r-- | c0/b9e40b4c56ce50ac6f3702603dbd512dcb1255 | 221 |
1 files changed, 221 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c0/b9e40b4c56ce50ac6f3702603dbd512dcb1255 b/c0/b9e40b4c56ce50ac6f3702603dbd512dcb1255 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..371aedcfd --- /dev/null +++ b/c0/b9e40b4c56ce50ac6f3702603dbd512dcb1255 @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@ +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 <flavien.charlon@pixodegames.com>) id 1XqtQt-0002Y5-Eo + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:47:44 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of + pixodegames.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.217.180; + envelope-from=flavien.charlon@pixodegames.com; + helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com; +Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1XqtQr-0004hL-9f + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:47:43 +0000 +Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id z11so11520272lbi.39 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:47:34 -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:cc:content-type; + bh=dhuP7oUASY6QX2lO3L+DLLgeRtFV0ZjttZk5g9aRRcg=; + b=BQ2sSIyyEXOvNle1Jku2qE7WTuJATa2Bmtre5oVmG822yoTW6Rq6mpn5Mp3NgVIHPX + t7RTa19dS4v2gTu+mh0l4t81FWWV7D5Ouax3ivv4uavFp8QDI8hdKmpqb5kYFAqXpuCW + F/Dny4gjKNydqfN7oM3b0zSx2fVtSOyyX/8DgA6DopoYRaqMe0qG8lZgVLhwfkJccGqm + AiPfMt6nqGS8pd1Cmzuk+INELD8qwky7qgyO5QtviL/piA9JPbfW0C5RuBnkcGY+w8GT + xmstYuAM3BuD/7+rybILgyJC40/VazORoCdB+LE9McGPEDZXCo9kKitleZROgcsNTiut + ewjw== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0u8v+8ItJo2GJKZn2uq+5c/gdaxakrtEZCo42GkBb6yqnjIF8F1qWBwx32gnJ3TyYcjsO +X-Received: by 10.112.254.162 with SMTP id aj2mr2360833lbd.70.1416358054731; + Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:47:34 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com. + [209.85.217.180]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w8sm44469lbp.46.2014.11.18.16.47.34 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:47:34 -0800 (PST) +Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id z11so11777402lbi.11 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:47:34 -0800 (PST) +X-Received: by 10.152.42.226 with SMTP id r2mr2444758lal.29.1416358054258; + Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:47:34 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.114.23.227 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:46:51 -0800 (PST) +X-Originating-IP: [89.100.161.202] +In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzub_UJpYPtpiWmmrDG47G50h7zh6vVo0q9NOwzVmcjCYA@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com> + <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> + <CABm2gDpBOtZB01Qj3Dc3dWSpG2zLr+VPYbnwrq8YVh8qfxMW5Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CABm2gDoi1593ssoGN69E42c-N3s02yYKAqDEDA2m-e+6LqjpTQ@mail.gmail.com> + <5469692F.9030702@gmail.com> + <CAPg+sBgM4ja0Y96KekJUN7Qg=o0xa1B0VUiiPuFQTYfrupoERg@mail.gmail.com> + <CABbpET8yyZHO185Fzip61KoRTrGy4bEaoEpnzPuARfhhfPUTCg@mail.gmail.com> + <CADJgMzub_UJpYPtpiWmmrDG47G50h7zh6vVo0q9NOwzVmcjCYA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> +Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:46:51 +0000 +Message-ID: <CABbpET_ycdiQV+1F+rCjhuwQXv=1W=4ywdES-rxvqDf3v2HfuQ@mail.gmail.com> +To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c35088b3003605082b8eca +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: 1XqtQr-0004hL-9f +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:47:44 -0000 + +--001a11c35088b3003605082b8eca +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +> +> While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics +> because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you +> should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been +> OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according +> their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block explorer[2]). + + +Sure, but even if they are not permitted to store their data in OP_RETURN, +they will still store it in the blockchain in bare multisig outputs, so +it's not contributing to an overhead (in fact, it would consume less space +in the blockchain if they used OP_RETURN). + +On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote: + +> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon < +> flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> wrote: +> +>> > My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to +>> use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel +>> +>> The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport +>> mechanism is Counterparty, and limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't +>> prevent them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs which is +>> worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store +>> much more than 40 bytes. +>> +>> For Open Assets <https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol>, we +>> need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus +>> some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit +>> of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, +>> FTP, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to +>> hardcode the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is +>> not enough to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine +>> for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to +>> build something interesting. +>> +>> I've counted the number of OP_RETURN outputs in the blockchain for the +>> month of October 2014. There were 1,674 OP_RETURNs for a span of 4,659 +>> blocks. Assuming they were all 40 bytes (the average is probably less than +>> half of that), that means an increase of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering +>> a 1 MB block, that's about 0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN +>> data in average. +>> +>> Increasing to 80 bytes will have a negligible impact on bandwidth and +>> storage requirements, while being extremely useful for many use cases where +>> a hash only is not enough. +>> +> +> While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics +> because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you +> should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been +> OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according +> their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block explorer[2]). +> +> Refs: +> [1] +> http://counterparty.io/news/celebrating-100000-transaction-on-the-counterparty-network/ +> [2] http://blockscan.com/ +> +> + +--001a11c35088b3003605082b8eca +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px = +0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-w= +idth:1px;border-left-style:solid">While I am not opposing the proposal, I a= +m not sure about your statistics because while Counterparty is not currentl= +y using OP_RETURN encoding, you should factor in the number of CP transacti= +ons that would have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 sin= +ce inception according their blog[1] with monthly charts at their block exp= +lorer[2]).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, but even if they are not p= +ermitted to store their data in OP_RETURN, they will still store it in the = +blockchain in bare multisig outputs, so it's not contributing to an ove= +rhead (in fact, it would consume less space in the blockchain if they used = +OP_RETURN).=C2=A0</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"g= +mail_quote">On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Btc Drak <span dir=3D"ltr"><= +;<a href=3D"mailto:btcdrak@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">btcdrak@gmail.com</= +a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= + 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><di= +v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span>On Mon, Nov 17, 20= +14 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:fla= +vien.charlon@coinprism.com" target=3D"_blank">flavien.charlon@coinprism.com= +</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin= +:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bord= +er-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><div>>= + My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to use= + the blockchain as a convenient transport channel</div><div><br></div></spa= +n><div>The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mec= +hanism is Counterparty, and limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes didn't preve= +nt them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs which is worse th= +an OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let them store muc= +h more than 40 bytes.</div><div><br></div><div>For <a href=3D"https://githu= +b.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol" target=3D"_blank">Open Assets</a>, w= +e need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionally a hash) plus= + some bytes of overhead. 40 bytes comes really short for that. The benefit = +of having a URL in there is that any storage mechanism can be used (Web, FT= +P, BitTorrent, MaidSafe...), whereas with only a hash, you have to hardcode= + the storing mechanism in the protocol (and even then, a hash is not enough= + to address a HTTP or FTP resource). Storing only a hash is fine for the mo= +st basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough to build some= +thing interesting.</div><div><br></div><div>I've counted the number of = +OP_RETURN outputs in the blockchain for the month of October 2014. There we= +re 1,674 OP_RETURNs for a span of 4,659 blocks.=C2=A0Assuming they were all= + 40 bytes (the average is probably less than half of that), that means an i= +ncrease of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering a 1 MB block, that's abou= +t <span>0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN data in average.</span></= +div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>Increasing to 80 bytes will have= + a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements, while being ext= +remely useful for many use cases where a hash only is not enough.</span></d= +iv></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>While I am not opposing th= +e proposal, I am not sure about your statistics because while Counterparty = +is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you should factor in the number = +of CP transactions that would have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitt= +ed (100,000 since inception according their blog[1] with monthly charts at = +their block explorer[2]).</div><div><br></div><div>Refs:<br></div><div>[1]= +=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://counterparty.io/news/celebrating-100000-transaction= +-on-the-counterparty-network/" target=3D"_blank">http://counterparty.io/new= +s/celebrating-100000-transaction-on-the-counterparty-network/</a></div><div= +>[2]=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://blockscan.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://blocks= +can.com/</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div> +</blockquote></div><br></div> + +--001a11c35088b3003605082b8eca-- + + |