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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WgfIg-0005aO-Aj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.174; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WgfIe-0003vW-Gr
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n15so2257536lbi.33
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 03 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.202 with SMTP id e10mr48705lae.76.1399144113860; Sat,
03 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Sat, 3 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53653B90.4070401@monetize.io>
References: <CABbpET-uDQRFQ_XAFeWkgc=A1jEW62Q+8BTZZuW5UbZXX0y+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
<218332ea-948d-4af0-b4c5-ced83f25d734@email.android.com>
<53653B90.4070401@monetize.io>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:08:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgS61rxB3x4ii68XTHC-V_jpfng-Px6Tv9GV20-putiLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WgfIe-0003vW-Gr
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
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: Sat, 03 May 2014 19:08:42 -0000
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to
> minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes
> minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a
> single OP_RETURN.
In this case it's not a question extra txouts, its a question of
additional pushes. Assuming you didn't get the push overhead for free,
the only issue I see with that off the cuff is extra complexity in the
IsStandard rule... but really, why? Your application already needs to
define the meaning of the data=E2=80=94 what point is there in making your
hash commitment less uniform with the rest of the network?
|
