<p>I can't answer your questions about whether it's true and why.</p>
<p>It's possible that he would've taken that stance because sensitive information could be put into the block chain. Consider the consequences if some of the following examples were included in the block chain (and thus stored on every PC running the client):</p>
<ol>
<li>Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks</li>
<li>Illegal pornography</li>
<li>The name of someone who has name suppression granted by a court</li>
<li>The private key for an important encryption algorithm (eg <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this one</a>)</li>
</ol>
<p>While some activities making use of Bitcoin may be illegal in themselves in some countries, storing data such as the above in the blockchain would create additional legal problems in many countries.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-16T20:05:11.023Z
Bitcoin itself could be made illegal in some countries, regardless of the content of the block-chain. This does not mean people living in other countries should not use it. Same goes for messages. In any case - it is a possibly unavoidable feature of the current protocol. Your post seems to be more a comment than an answer - I'm not debating whether it's ok, I'm asking about Satoshi's opinions. I've asked the original author to answer here as well.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-16T20:22:35.417Z
It's far too long to fit in a comment, and gives a very plausible reason why Satoshi (or anyone else) would object to the idea, so I very much believe it is worthy of remaining an "answer". Sometimes, an answer to a slightly different question is more worthwhile than a strictly accurate answer to the stated question.
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-16T20:34:16.183Z
As you wish. I won't accept it though :)
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-16T19:53:12.993Z
2012-01-16T20:26:39.657Z
2020-06-16T11:10:03.350Z
Highly Irregular
<p>He supported IsStandard, but he was not against small amounts of arbitrary data. <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2162.msg28549#msg28549">Satoshi said</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <p>why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That's already possible.  <code>&lt;pubkey&gt; OP_CHECKSIG.  &lt;pubkey&gt;</code> can be 33 to 120 bytes.</p>
  
  <p>I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data.  There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway.  It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He always promoted putting hashes in the chain instead of the arbitrary data itself, though I don't know whether he was strongly <em>opposed</em> to the latter.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-16T20:38:58.460Z
2012-01-16T20:38:58.460Z
theymos
<p><a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-second-bitcoin-whitepaper/" rel="nofollow">From this post</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Our beloved Satoshi is on record that he doesn’t think it appropriate
  to embed data willy-nilly in the block-chain</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is this claim true? If so, why did he object?</p>

<p>I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it. Since the protocol allows it, it is a legitimate service.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-13T02:28:15.163Z
"I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it." You're paying the miner, but then everyone else suffers latency having to download the huge thing.
Christopher King
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-17T16:12:16.420Z
Sorry, I was a bit lazy with that claim. I remember reading a quote by him in the forums to that effect, but I haven't found it again to post a link to it.
dacoinminster
<blockchain><satoshi>
Did Satoshi object to embedding data in the block chain? Why?
ripper234
# Did Satoshi object to embedding data in the block chain? Why?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-16)

[From this post](http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-second-bitcoin-whitepaper/):

> Our beloved Satoshi is on record that he doesn’t think it appropriate
> to embed data willy-nilly in the block-chain

Is this claim true? If so, why did he object?

I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it. Since the protocol allows it, it is a legitimate service.

**Tags:** blockchain, satoshi

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Sorry, I was a bit lazy with that claim. I remember reading a quote by him in the forums to that effect, but I haven't found it again to post a link to it.  
> **username_1**: "I don't think it's "wrong" in any sense to embed data in the blockchain, because you're essentially paying for it." You're paying the miner, but then everyone else suffers latency having to download the huge thing.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-01-16. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

He supported IsStandard, but he was not against small amounts of arbitrary data. [Satoshi said](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2162.msg28549#msg28549):

> > why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?
>
> That's already possible. `<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG. <pubkey>` can be 33 to 120 bytes.
>
> I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data. There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway. It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it.

He always promoted putting hashes in the chain instead of the arbitrary data itself, though I don't know whether he was strongly *opposed* to the latter.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-01-16. Score: 3

I can't answer your questions about whether it's true and why.

It's possible that he would've taken that stance because sensitive information could be put into the block chain. Consider the consequences if some of the following examples were included in the block chain (and thus stored on every PC running the client):

1. Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks
2. Illegal pornography
3. The name of someone who has name suppression granted by a court
4. The private key for an important encryption algorithm (eg [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy))

While some activities making use of Bitcoin may be illegal in themselves in some countries, storing data such as the above in the blockchain would create additional legal problems in many countries.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Bitcoin itself could be made illegal in some countries, regardless of the content of the block-chain. This does not mean people living in other countries should not use it. Same goes for messages. In any case - it is a possibly unavoidable feature of the current protocol. Your post seems to be more a comment than an answer - I'm not debating whether it's ok, I'm asking about Satoshi's opinions. I've asked the original author to answer here as well.  
> **username_3**: It's far too long to fit in a comment, and gives a very plausible reason why Satoshi (or anyone else) would object to the idea, so I very much believe it is worthy of remaining an "answer". Sometimes, an answer to a slightly different question is more worthwhile than a strictly accurate answer to the stated question.  
> **username_0**: As you wish. I won't accept it though :)  

---

