From: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail•com>
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:11:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABE6yHtM2Dqc63_eURSr7dMirJti5sYnqvHj7vQ_Ab9FC_d04g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACrqygCNf3Gv8+VjhyqS4GTb3Epo8qXEKGtQB6sqyR6ib44-fA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1031 bytes --]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the right way so people don't invent deviant things is to
>> increase the size of OP_RETURN, I don't get this number of 80B, you can
>> hardly store a signature (of what?) in there and not the "what" if the
>> "what" is a hash for example
>>
>
> Updating the size of OP_RETURN to support a hash (or two), a signature,
> and maybe a few more bytes for metadata, would be very helpful in a number
> of scenarios. It is still a limit but a reasonable one. Otherwise, I think
> we'll have a lot more inscription-style scenarios.
>
I wouldn't be against an increase in OP_RETURN but I don't think it will
make any difference in how often inscription-style use cases will be used.
They will be used primarily for much larger datasets than, say 120 bytes,
and they also have the segwit discount.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1722 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-04 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 0:46 Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 2:07 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 2:22 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-01 8:36 ` Kostas Karasavvas
2023-02-01 12:51 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-01 14:02 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-02-02 11:22 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 11:45 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 11:49 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-02 12:24 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-01 12:59 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-02 13:25 ` Rijndael
2023-02-03 11:15 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-03 18:47 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 14:11 ` Kostas Karasavvas [this message]
2023-02-04 17:01 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 18:54 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 20:55 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-04 22:18 ` Christopher Allen
2023-02-04 23:09 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:04 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 11:40 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 12:06 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 12:47 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 0:11 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-05 2:01 ` Peter Todd
2023-02-05 18:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2023-02-12 16:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 18:23 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-16 19:59 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2023-02-17 10:56 ` Aymeric Vitte
2023-02-05 18:06 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-02-17 12:49 ` Anthony Towns
2023-02-18 18:38 ` Aymeric Vitte
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=CABE6yHtM2Dqc63_eURSr7dMirJti5sYnqvHj7vQ_Ab9FC_d04g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=kkarasavvas@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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