Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WHyeh-0008MO-Im for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:45:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WHyef-0003I0-RH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:45:23 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t59so5497189yho.36 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.50.194 with SMTP id z42mr1991795yhb.145.1393260316165; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.133.213 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Wladimir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -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: 1WHyef-0003I0-RH Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 16:45:23 -0000 --001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 40 bytes is small enough to never require an OP_PUSHDATA1, too, which will make writing the OP_RETURN-as-standard BIP simpler. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Wladimir wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> 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. >> > > I'd be in favor of bringing it down to 40 for 0.9. > > That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identifier><32 byte hash>. > > 80, as the standard line length, is almost asking for "insert your > graffiti message here". I also see no need for 64 bytes hashes such as > SHA512 in the context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security (at > most) in the first place. > > And if this is not abused, these kind of transactions become popular, and > more space is really needed, the limit can always be increased in a future > version. > > Wladimir > -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
40 bytes is small enough to never require an OP_PUSHDATA1,= too, which will make writing the OP_RETURN-as-standard BIP simpler.

On Mon, F= eb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03= PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
A c= ommon 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.
<= /blockquote>

I'd be in favor of bringing it do= wn to 40 for 0.9.

That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identi= fier><32 byte hash>.

80, as the standard line length, is almost asking for "insert your= graffiti message here". I also see no need for 64 bytes hashes such a= s SHA512 in the context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security (a= t most) in the first place.

And if this is not abused, these kind of transactions become= popular, and more space is really needed, the limit can always be increase= d in a future version.

Wladimir=



--
--
Gavin = Andresen
--001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288--