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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1WHz3N-0000oC-C2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:10:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.181; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-we0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WHz3M-0005nJ-Aj
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:10:53 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w61so4973959wes.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:10:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
bh=HHrNL9roE1UCIJKfoj+duC9ZisZOUL0cLWMm2PClZoc=;
b=m4WlbPaCvsCbrR7musOhmfmc0GJjXheJkQk7omFkqq3cmiZG4zP1eXSVLpfZlWgY2f
WlHJ539ea2eYx0wiSon0ukOaM6hBBrGT2XTWVfTyAftLqHSCwXJeJYrSJe3UZckKwthi
w+iSE3VH5UndR0XmV8fBZzjYOomw0j9aHh52Dq3vDB/Asqu/e7NOYBodiNiKrPnhgzap
R1hCEC2rnFZjAAMXYZGl1jdPb+/wiYiDuVQzYV7CyLsU5EOgL2gYdWlF/umQQ6GmpDNJ
2TLauDUoazfQ7j6c6+c8JZQN7X9wGsVO1PCputJE8F/R87RZxdXnW+PYAcjKkxmWIUrM
tNzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6rAxpCfzxKkOOAxVPq0I4yr1Vm2SV6lciMZIcEIg6V9VInLnfkexxd5ziWEbcRl74D6sA
X-Received: by 10.195.12.5 with SMTP id em5mr7380721wjd.77.1393261846211; Mon,
24 Feb 2014 09:10:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.82.197 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:10:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0PXHY1qisXhN98DMxgp11ouqkzYMBvrTTNOtwX09T1kZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:10:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NP-78iK7dpB96YnJ0D3VftaahvZ1k4U0ziV-jAUKqdFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 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: 1WHz3M-0005nJ-Aj
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 17:10:53 -0000
This PR reduces the size to 40 bytes:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3737
(Note - this is not intended to close the discussion... please do keep
sending in feedback)
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> An update in forthcoming 0.9 release includes a change to make
> OP_RETURN standard, permitted a small amount of metadata to be
> attached to a transaction:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2738
>
> There was always going to be some level of controversy attached to
> this. However, some issues, perceptions and questions are bubbling
> up, and it seemed fair to cover them on the list, not just IRC.
>
> 1) FAQ: Why 80 bytes of data? This is the leading programmer
> question, and it was not really documented well at all. Simple
> answer: 2x SHA256 or 1x SHA512, plus some tiny bit of metadata. Some
> schemes are of the nature "BOND<hash>" rather than just plain hash.
> 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.
>
> 2) Endorsement of chain data storage. Listening to bitcoin conference
> corridor discussions, reading forum posts and the occasional article
> have over-simplified the situation to "core devs endorse data storage
> over blockchain! let me start uploading my naughty movie collection!
> IM over blockchain, woo hoo!"
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a way to make data
> /less damaging/, not an endorsement of data storage in chain as a good
> idea. MasterCoin and other projects were doing -even worse- things,
> such as storing data in forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating the
> UTXO for eternity.
>
> It seems reasonable to have a release note to this effect in the 0.9
> release announcement, IMO.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
