📅 Original date posted:2014-02-24
📝 Original message:On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:06:30 PM Andreas Petersson 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)
Perhaps I ought to redo my data carrier configuration option as a max size?
Luke
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 15:13:58
in reply to nevent1q…9g36
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:13:58Event JSON
{
"id": "1a15f789ccb4efda74480f35c7723e17500e2f24a42cbc9d103d3ca4f20c7d6c",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686150838,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1ef870aa2080d76066b16301e94316a8cf8557aa7768e48cc4c5664289bfd14e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9afdd20685f68e91072cacccc96b7d7035d1176e29cc45413e090edafa500a06",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-02-24\n📝 Original message:On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:06:30 PM Andreas Petersson wrote:\n\u003e Regarding 80 bytes vs smaller: The objectives should be that if you are\n\u003e determined to put some extra data in the blockchain, OP_RETURN should be\n\u003e the superior alternative. if a user can include more data with less fees\n\u003e using a multisig TX, then this will happen.\n\u003e \n\u003e eventually dust-limit rules will not be the deciding factor here, since\n\u003e i suspect block propagation times will have a stronger effect on\n\u003e effective fees. therefore a slightly larger payload than the biggest\n\u003e multisig TX is the right answer. - that would be \u003e= 64x3 bytes = 192 bytes.\n\u003e (this is my understanding of how large a 3-of-3 multisig tx can be, plus\n\u003e 1.5 bits encoded in the \"n\" parameter)\n\nPerhaps I ought to redo my data carrier configuration option as a max size?\n\nLuke",
"sig": "29e4393acd08e2c950af7e2419457c2dc518f1ddfa83e259e20d63ea51097861d98e016c58fa72516d692d0a5ddfbe28759e6d3fa1e32c001959d7e4666f85c1"
}