Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On OP_RETURN in upcoming 0.9 release

From: Gregory Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:13:28 -0800

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Andreas Petersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Regarding 80 bytes vs smaller: The objectives should be that if you are
> determined to put some extra data in the blockchain, OP_RETURN should be
> the superior alternative. if a user can include more data with less fees
> using a multisig TX, then this will happen.
>
> eventually dust-limit rules will not be the deciding factor here, since
> i suspect block propagation times will have a stronger effect on
> effective fees. therefore a slightly larger payload than the biggest
> multisig TX is the right answer. - that would be >= 64x3 bytes = 192 bytes.
> (this is my understanding of how large a 3-of-3 multisig tx can be, plus
> 1.5 bits encoded in the "n" parameter)

At least there is no ambiguity that such usage is abusive. Adoption of
the practices matters too. Right now I've seen a lot of people
promoting data storage as a virtuous use, and gearing up to directly
store data when a commitment would work.

If it turns out that encouraging people to use hashes is a lost cause
it can always be further relaxed in the future, going the other way is
much harder.