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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1XqCqU-0002N5-JK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.174; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XqCqT-0006nL-RG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c9so4748701qcz.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.224.29.196 with SMTP id r4mr31343022qac.12.1416194352456;
Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-69-143-221-64.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
[69.143.221.64])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 36sm33224620qgn.10.2014.11.16.19.19.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:19:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5469692F.9030702@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:19:11 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com> <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> <CABm2gDpBOtZB01Qj3Dc3dWSpG2zLr+VPYbnwrq8YVh8qfxMW5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoi1593ssoGN69E42c-N3s02yYKAqDEDA2m-e+6LqjpTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoi1593ssoGN69E42c-N3s02yYKAqDEDA2m-e+6LqjpTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(etotheipi[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1XqCqT-0006nL-RG
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload
size
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, 17 Nov 2014 03:19:18 -0000
On 11/16/2014 02:04 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> I remember people asking in #bitcoin-dev "Does anyone know any use
> case for greater sizes OP_RETURNs?" and me answering "I do not know of
> any use cases that require bigger sizes".
For reference, there was a brief time where I was irritated that the
size had been reduced to 40 bytes, because I had an application where I
wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN, and you're going to
need at least 64 bytes for that. Unfortunately I can't remember now
what that application was, so it's difficult for me to argue for it.
But I don't think that's an unreasonable use case: sending a payment
with a signature, essentially all timestamped in the blockchain.
|
