Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-11-17 📝 Original message:On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-11-17
📝 Original message:On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon
<flavien.charlon at coinprism.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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,
Agreed. I'm in favor of increasing OP_RETURN size as well. Don't care
about the actual size.
(rationale: pruning is going to land soonish, and everything is better
than UTXO-polluting methods that encode everything into addresses such
as now used by cryptograffiti)
Wladimir
📝 Original message:On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Flavien Charlon
<flavien.charlon at coinprism.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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,
Agreed. I'm in favor of increasing OP_RETURN size as well. Don't care
about the actual size.
(rationale: pruning is going to land soonish, and everything is better
than UTXO-polluting methods that encode everything into addresses such
as now used by cryptograffiti)
Wladimir