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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WHyZE-00084G-D3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:39:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.50; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f50.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.214.50])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WHyZD-00034g-J7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:39:44 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w10so298211bkz.37
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:39:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.205.34.70 with SMTP id sr6mr62226bkb.170.1393259977253; Mon,
24 Feb 2014 08:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.75.72 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:39:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:39:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51a7352064d6104f3299e61
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(laanwj[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: 1WHyZD-00034g-J7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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 16:39:44 -0000
--bcaec51a7352064d6104f3299e61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> A common IRC proposal seems to lean towards reducing that from 80.
> I'll leave it to the crowd to argue about size from there. I do think
> regular transactions should have the ability to include some metadata.
>
I'd be in favor of bringing it down to 40 for 0.9.
That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identifier><32 byte hash>.
80, as the standard line length, is almost asking for "insert your graffiti
message here". I also see no need for 64 bytes hashes such as SHA512 in the
context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security (at most) in the
first place.
And if this is not abused, these kind of transactions become popular, and
more space is really needed, the limit can always be increased in a future
version.
Wladimir
--bcaec51a7352064d6104f3299e61
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target="_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">A common IRC proposal seems to lean towards reducing that from 80.<br>
I'll leave it to the crowd to argue about size from there. I do think<br>
regular transactions should have the ability to include some metadata.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd be in favor of bringing it down to 40 for 0.9. <br><br>That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identifier><32 byte hash>. <br>
<br>80, as the standard line length, is almost asking for "insert your graffiti message here". I also see no need for 64 bytes hashes such as SHA512 in the context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security (at most) in the first place.<br>
<br></div><div>And if this is not abused, these kind of transactions become popular, and more space is really needed, the limit can always be increased in a future version.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Wladimir<br></div></div>
</div></div>
--bcaec51a7352064d6104f3299e61--
|
