Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.172; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:30:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAW+dKytucOCyR6-=wfUP_im9cZJaGu8nuhp8vGYX8Qdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload
	size
Precedence: list

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon
<flavien.charlon@coinprism.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The data that can be embedded as part of an OP_RETURN output is currently
> limited to 40 bytes. It was initially supposed to be 80 bytes, but got
> reduced to 40 before the 0.9 release to err on the side of caution.
>
> After 9 months, it seems OP_RETURN did not lead to a blockchain catastrophe,

Agreed. I'm in favor of increasing OP_RETURN size as well. Don't care
about the actual size.

(rationale: pruning is going to land soonish, and everything is better
than UTXO-polluting methods that encode everything into addresses such
as now used by cryptograffiti)

Wladimir