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
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1WHyeh-0008MO-Im
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:45:23 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.49; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yh0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WHyef-0003I0-RH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:45:23 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f49.google.com with SMTP id t59so5497189yho.36
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.50.194 with SMTP id z42mr1991795yhb.145.1393260316165;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.133.213 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:45:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC1FgCW9spkViMPvuWNS84Ys33pj=RP1ZpzBCa++e-iMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:45:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1qrmgu7nBF4yOsFfUjMrqpGK-J_GeCqWswZskO59B0ZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1WHyef-0003I0-RH
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 16:45:23 -0000
--001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
40 bytes is small enough to never require an OP_PUSHDATA1, too, which will
make writing the OP_RETURN-as-standard BIP simpler.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">40 bytes is small enough to never require an OP_PUSHDATA1,=
too, which will make writing the OP_RETURN-as-standard BIP simpler.<div><b=
r></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, F=
eb 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Wladimir <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:l=
aanwj@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">laanwj@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"">On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:03=
PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com=
" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">A c=
ommon 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<b=
r>
regular transactions should have the ability to include some metadata.<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I'd be in favor of bringing it do=
wn to 40 for 0.9. <br><br>That'd be enough for <8 byte header/identi=
fier><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 a=
s SHA512 in the context of bitcoin, as that only offers 256-bit security (a=
t 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 increase=
d in a future version.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br></=
font></span></div>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><br></div><div>Wladimir=
<br></div></font></span></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin =
Andresen<br>
</div></div>
--001a11c1d968398eb904f329b288--
|
