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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
Precedence: list

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?