1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <btcdrak@gmail.com>) id 1XqmsC-0005Rp-Cw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:47:28 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XqmsB-0000rG-1N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:47:28 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hi2so4943055wib.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.194.205.103 with SMTP id lf7mr5073822wjc.134.1416332840985;
Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:47:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.31.130 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:47:05 -0800 (PST)
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>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:47:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzub_UJpYPtpiWmmrDG47G50h7zh6vVo0q9NOwzVmcjCYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97d68def91b050825afe9
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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
0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(btcdrak[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: 1XqmsB-0000rG-1N
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: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:47:28 -0000
--047d7ba97d68def91b050825afe9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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/
--047d7ba97d68def91b050825afe9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:flavien.charlon@coinprism.com" target=3D"_blank">flavien.charlon=
@coinprism.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><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></span><div>The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and=
transport mechanism is Counterparty, and limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes di=
dn't prevent them from doing so. In fact they use multi-sig outputs whi=
ch is worse than OP_RETURN since it's not always prunable, and yet let =
them store much more than 40 bytes.</div><div><br></div><div>For <a href=3D=
"https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol" target=3D"_blank">Open=
Assets</a>, we need to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output (with optionall=
y 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 ha=
ve 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 f=
ine for the most basic timestamping application, but it's hardly enough=
to build something 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 were 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), t=
hat means an increase of 14.37 bytes per block. Considering a 1 MB block, t=
hat's about <span>0.0013% of the block used up by OP_RETURN data in ave=
rage.</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>Increasing to 80 b=
ytes will have a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements, w=
hile being extremely useful for many use cases where a hash only is not eno=
ugh.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While I am not oppo=
sing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics because while Counte=
rparty 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 cha=
rts at their block explorer[2]).</div><div><br></div><div>Refs:<br></div><d=
iv>[1]=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://counterparty.io/news/celebrating-100000-trans=
action-on-the-counterparty-network/" target=3D"_blank">http://counterparty.=
io/news/celebrating-100000-transaction-on-the-counterparty-network/</a></di=
v><div>[2]=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://blockscan.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://=
blockscan.com/</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7ba97d68def91b050825afe9--
|
