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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0D9B66
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 9 Jan 2017 03:09:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E25E134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 9 Jan 2017 03:09:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA4ED38A179D;
Mon, 9 Jan 2017 03:08:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170109:ctpacia@gmail.com::3yUkPJWJ/SGsUoG9:a15=V
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170109:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::2/ecGtJSDCC8YdU7:b8qqv
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Chris <ctpacia@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 03:08:56 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.39-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
References: <8c64f5db-7cac-3fde-85c0-a75d752c4192@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8c64f5db-7cac-3fde-85c0-a75d752c4192@gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201701090308.58360.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Mutli-push op_return
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 03:09:30 -0000
On Monday, January 09, 2017 2:09:09 AM Chris via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Would there be an objection to making op_return outputs with two
> pushdatas standard (same max data size)?
Standards (BIPs) need to describe a specific use case and protocol for doing
it.
As you note, the default policy on most nodes is to allow such outputs.
Luke
|
