>
> While I am not opposing the proposal, I am not sure about your statistics
> because while Counterparty is not currently using OP_RETURN encoding, you
> should factor in the number of CP transactions that would have been
> OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted (100,000 since inception according
On Nov 17, 2014 7:39 AM, "Pieter Wuille" wrote:
> That is inevitable for any wallet that offers any functionality beyond
> just maintaining a balance and the ability to send coins. In
> particular, anything that wishes to list previous transaction (with
> timestamps, history, metadata, messages s
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Flavien Charlon <
flavien.char...@coinprism.com> wrote:
> > My main concern with OP_RETURN is that it seems to encourage people to
> use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel
>
> The number one user of the blockchain as a storage and transport mechanism
DKIM is hardly a PoW; signing is cheap and gets cheaper all the time. I
used to work in the email business and big bulk mailers all spent far more
CPU time on other aspects of their business, the overhead of DKIM is
irrelevant.
PoW didn't work in the anti spam world because it (amongst other probl
4 matches
Mail list logo
