Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-11-17 📝 Original message:On 11/16/2014 02:04 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-11-17
📝 Original message: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.
📝 Original message: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.