From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Cc: Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism•com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Increasing the OP_RETURN maximum payload size
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:24:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABbpET9eTgk1GyxYbcG++O_rqsnfB7w5_Xp4XgE6qwkmGsm1eg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:21:27 PM Flavien Charlon wrote:
> 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, so I think it might be time to discuss increasing the limit.
Mining policies such as this is always up to miners.
It's not a development topic.
> There are a number of proposals:
>
> 1. Allow two OP_RETURN outputs per transaction (PR
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5075>)
This one seems uselessly inefficient. Protocols needing OP_RETURN could just
as easily look for an independent push opcode in a single OP_RETURN output.
> 2. Increase the default maximum payload size from 40 bytes to 80 bytes (
> PR <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5286>)
> Note that the maximum can be configured already through the
> 'datacarriersize' option - this is just changing the default.
I don't care strongly, but IMO this kind of focus on defaults is part of the
problem. I'd prefer to have the default be randomised to incentivise miners to
make the decision they're supposed to be making, rather than pushing the
responsibility onto developers to set defaults.
> 3. Make the maximum OP_RETURN payload size proportional to the number of
> outputs of the transaction
Right now, this policy requires code hacks. Of the three ideas, this one looks
the most ripe for code changes (particularly one that makes it possible to
configure this policy, not hardcoding it).
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-16 17:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-16 16:21 Flavien Charlon
2014-11-16 17:24 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2014-11-16 18:44 ` Jorge Timón
2014-11-16 19:04 ` Jorge Timón
2014-11-17 3:19 ` Alan Reiner
2014-11-17 10:35 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-17 11:20 ` Adam Back
2014-11-17 12:31 ` Chris Pacia
2014-11-17 12:39 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-18 22:33 ` Chris Pacia
2014-11-17 11:43 ` Flavien Charlon
2014-11-17 12:00 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-17 12:22 ` Jorge Timón
2014-11-18 17:47 ` Btc Drak
2014-11-19 0:46 ` Flavien Charlon
2014-11-17 10:30 ` Wladimir
2014-11-20 23:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rupp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201411161724.19573.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=flavien.charlon@coinprism$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox