Quote from: Vlad2Vlad on June 03, 2014, 05:48:53 PM

Quote from: jamaer on June 03, 2014, 04:56:47 PM

Quote from: Vlad2Vlad on June 03, 2014, 03:28:16 PM

May I ask why the 80-Bytes limit?
...
Also, is this still the best way assuming we can get the pools to update?

I don't know any other reason than that some people do not like things like Counterparty to be used in Bitcoin network. And that's exactly (as Friction has been saying several times) is the chance for IXCoin. We can offer almost the same crucial feature (security), and instead of obfuscating the use of of protocols like Counterparty, we welcome them!

For the second question, I think update is needed only for the OP_RETURN feature to be enabled. So I think originally the idea was to get the pools to update to the current version, but if I recall right, Friction said that OP_RETURN is not enabled in the current version (as it was supposed to be). So we need a new version of the client. When doing that, we could also increase the 80-byte limit (especially if it makes sense from the counterparty implementation point of view) as opposed to bitcoin decreasing(?) it!

This update is still in progress, so why are we gonna wait for the nex update? What's the point? Why waste a few more months?

How many more lines of code to add the OP_Return and to raise the limit?

Why don't we do this right the first time, I don't understand?

And if needed let's also raise the trasansaction size limit since that will quickly become an issue if this feature becomes popular.

OP_RETURN with data does not exist in the 0.8.6 version of IXcoin. A new version needs to be created to support this.

Without this feature, Counterparty for IXC will not work.

Furthermore, without this new version going into the pool... Counterparty for IXC will not work.

Also, if it is not already apparent, Counterparty for IXC is a separate client from the IXC client.

There are certain real dependencies to get everything working right.