[bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Hi everyone, My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead of Po.et . At Po.et we use colored coins t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

ve to live with for a little while until we can address that issue. Is there a formal / standard process to claim it we should follow? El dom., 5 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 20:58, Peter Todd escribió: > > > On August 5, 2018 9:11:26 PM UTC, Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev &

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

7;t do it at all. > > Note that BIPs need to specify an actual protocol, not just claim a prefix. > > > On Sunday 05 August 2018 21:11:26 Lautaro Dragan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > My name's Lautaro and I'm currently acting as Tech Lead

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Claiming an OP_RETURN Prefix

Thanks Christopher. > op_return outputs can be pruned because they are not spendable. putting a hash on in the witness script data won't make things better (it would actually make them worse) and it definitely doesn't help "block size bloat". Agreed > I think I'm missing some context, but if you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Signet

Hi Karl-Johan, my two cents: At Po.et we use regtest to simulate reorgs in integration tests in Travis / CircleCI. It has proved quite useful. In general regtest for automated testing has given us all we needed so far, but I admit we have a rather simple use of Bitcoin right now (colored coins).