MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABbpET8yyZHO185Fzip61KoRTrGy4bEaoEpnzPuARfhhfPUTCg@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>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:22:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrZpfQkmZXDDJY9KGAN-WiLE3g7GvZnsgoT=PXa2BhO+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload
	size
Precedence: list

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Flavien Charlon
<flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> wrote:
> Storing only a hash
> is fine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough
> to build something interesting.

No, storing only a hash is enough for ALL timestamping applications.
If you need to broadcast more data then we're not talking about
timestamping anymore, but rather proof of publication.
Unfortunately (and as it has been already mentioned) many applications
don't need proof of publication and yet they are just using the
blockchain as a convenient transport mechanism, but that's highly
inefficient.
It's like if you sent all your mails to all the existing email
addresses with the metadata "to be read by: destination@yourhost.com".
It wouldn't make any sense and it wouldn't scale.
A url definitely looks like something that doesn't belong in the chain.