blob: 90023ffd62ba5dce303714471c14d0063b76a29a (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andreas@petersson.at>) id 1WI4bw-0006dv-CK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:06:56 +0000
Received: from bi.petersson.at ([46.4.24.198] helo=petersson.at)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WI4bv-0003kZ-CN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:06:56 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.199] (chello084114039092.14.vie.surfer.at
[84.114.39.92])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: andreas)
by petersson.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B75E238081E
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:14:03 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <530BD076.3020606@petersson.at>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:06:30 +0100
From: Andreas Petersson <andreas@petersson.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<530B8000.1070801@monetize.io>
In-Reply-To: <530B8000.1070801@monetize.io>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1WI4bv-0003kZ-CN
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: <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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:06:56 -0000
Regarding 80 bytes vs smaller: The objectives should be that if you are
determined to put some extra data in the blockchain, OP_RETURN should be
the superior alternative. if a user can include more data with less fees
using a multisig TX, then this will happen.
eventually dust-limit rules will not be the deciding factor here, since
i suspect block propagation times will have a stronger effect on
effective fees. therefore a slightly larger payload than the biggest
multisig TX is the right answer. - that would be >= 64x3 bytes = 192 bytes.
(this is my understanding of how large a 3-of-3 multisig tx can be, plus
1.5 bits encoded in the "n" parameter)
|
