diff options
| author | Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com> | 2023-02-01 10:36:52 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2023-02-01 08:37:05 +0000 |
| commit | 8f0a61c340657aa29068d0c4c65c8729edf2bef7 (patch) | |
| tree | 4f4a94090ac3653cdc75caf52b3107123311e088 | |
| parent | 35c3cde65cdf137468049c0318f44c8d7f796d93 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-8f0a61c340657aa29068d0c4c65c8729edf2bef7.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-8f0a61c340657aa29068d0c4c65c8729edf2bef7.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH
| -rw-r--r-- | e5/a4f88001facca9b66c33d8b06dece350baf19c | 242 |
1 files changed, 242 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e5/a4f88001facca9b66c33d8b06dece350baf19c b/e5/a4f88001facca9b66c33d8b06dece350baf19c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3d6822392 --- /dev/null +++ b/e5/a4f88001facca9b66c33d8b06dece350baf19c @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +Return-Path: <kkarasavvas@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5B0C002B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:37:05 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836AA60BDE + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:37:05 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 836AA60BDE +Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com + header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=SRRH65uU +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 0-usLM8fK_wo + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:37:04 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 35F6760BB5 +Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com + [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35F6760BB5 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:37:04 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id + 00721157ae682-506609635cbso236588447b3.4 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:37:03 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; + h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references + :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; + bh=Evj34jMX8euWK/OMnSx2quEdO7wGczA1tdKZgHzwIoo=; + b=SRRH65uU4lQsdFYVXZManqopZKOGKauDj0ICfacL+kUhKswi3PQeLU3ODk2Vwjd5DZ + HC5+f2LjiAC/nwlfXSFm85u1EoyQe0QX90tL9VpaHZootg+Tnee1M7cmGzfFAC6b63g1 + 6JPXFjStmmJ8Vu5P5zrBd5Jd0Icaw9/BtGGaMyz9497iZCnxQSfyDCRL2EprzXB9BrEf + nUxhpKlpzEz1Pcd7g1mfgbw19jpBl2ky5IUhr2+51LqHNMi4HBRI72ce5+flIxcT/d3m + Khqhd/kVtcLW31jgzqvTiYhQLHSbQK2pf+UbHBa73zjKqmgODagmOs6NYqXtT4Ji8stb + 9A9w== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20210112; + h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references + :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id + :reply-to; + bh=Evj34jMX8euWK/OMnSx2quEdO7wGczA1tdKZgHzwIoo=; + b=kVuzSpHDBEkdRxx6wkc58NbcG56U0tpv+93Nmq+PRwXkYJg2M0wbeAGZ5xSTxKnLdh + a7B0CI5lIgPz5g7P3dLKT4jnnBVSl27qEtpt6IZ7diROyGxTGVkNLCKu8yxnjzcLGoNG + Tm4mjriCwiJv2wXwYN/V2RatKOzXVQuDnV4iq1qOW3C2JG4qEW3hFP451hRncHo07POK + 4y+ZV/q8f2J5UXMjW1ZfUmYpf++cApehfG+uJqchCgd6U9je7nLAaFHsABvU6cTjff9f + +bu9XjTaCMzs4GWz/kvU4lsS8pYuV7XFinQXGb+SfgFqNWcnfo0XPgysWJdSIXVcHRh1 + flqQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUiJRy0J3wWqz9vAVOt2D1gO8Wh3Fz3tJSPkhNCbeVVJv5umLCU + XLYXjyWyjQt78BIa1IKbbdIhwpkhcFuuXarEBEM= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+RsiTNV78tEgyOq6Z8nx1turbYbbSadS8x+ZQD+1PuDt4bF9lMk+zi6L1ZV8Ywscbd3zTCyPJSo2xmuCqYZ0k= +X-Received: by 2002:a81:6541:0:b0:4d7:eb11:6bf7 with SMTP id + z62-20020a816541000000b004d7eb116bf7mr175330ywb.235.1675240622952; Wed, 01 + Feb 2023 00:37:02 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <CACrqygAMsO1giYuxm=DZUqfeRjEqGM7msmEnZ-AHws3oA2=aqw@mail.gmail.com> + <764E460B-C0C6-47B8-A97E-F7CBC81FD645@petertodd.org> + <CACrqygD8ZF-PqKuFK7-SgiPdZQ9ewt+9QGXytpf8+NYjjNjyfA@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CACrqygD8ZF-PqKuFK7-SgiPdZQ9ewt+9QGXytpf8+NYjjNjyfA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:36:52 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABE6yHtbgD_5kCHMu9P9ThbqRHnzXMERRZsu7_6H20CAcQuEww@mail.gmail.com> +To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e96ad05f39f5a90" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 14:08:38 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE + OP_IF OP_PUSH +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 08:37:05 -0000 + +--0000000000003e96ad05f39f5a90 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +With OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immediately visible in the +blockchain. I would consider this better (more straightforward) for things +like time-stamping. + +With Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visible. This +seems better when you don't want the data public but you need to be able to +reveal the data when the time comes. + +Unless it is important to reveal later, it seems to me that for 80 bytes or +less OP_RETURN is still the way to go post-taproot. + + + +On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, 04:30 Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev, < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> I don't have a concrete proposal in mind, I'm just trying to understand +> various tradeoffs in post-taproot bitcoin in more detail. +> +> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: +> +>> +>> >OP_FALSE +>> >OP_IF +>> >OP_PUSH my64bytes +>> >OP_ENDIF +>> +>> What's wrong with OpPush <data> OpDrop? +>> +> +> I'm not sure pro or con of either. I just saw that proposal above recently. +> +> +>> Also, it is incorrect to say that OpReturn outputs "clog UTXO space". The +>> whole point of OpReturn is to standardize a way to keep such outputs out of +>> the UTXO set. There is the 75% discount to using witness space. But +>> considering the size of a transaction as a whole using taproot instead of +>> OpReturn doesn't save much. +>> +> +> There are OP_RETURN tricks in production that do clog UTXO space. I was +> trying to avoid consideration of those by just saying to compare apples vs. +> apples, by presuming that any form of these transactions holding the 64 +> bytes is a spent transaction. +> +> Finally, _64_ bytes is more than a mere 32 byte commitment. What specific +>> use case do you actually have in mind here? Are you actually publishing +>> data, or simply committing to data? If the latter, you can use ECC +>> commitments and have no extra space at all. +>> +> +> I chose 64 bytes for this exercise, as I know there are tricks hiding 32 +> bytes as keys. As almost every op_return live out there is >32 bytes, I +> wanted an example that could be a signature, two hashes, a hash plus some +> metadata, etc. I also considered 96 bytes (for instance a hash and a +> signature), but as that doesn't fit into OP_RETURN's 80 bytes, that choice +> prohibits comparing the different approaches side-by-side. +> +> To come back to my question another way, if you ignore the people who say +> "never put anything except data facilitating coin transactions into the +> bitcoin blockchain", but if you also are not trying to use the bitcoin +> blockchain as a world database (ala ETH), what is the most pragmatic way to +> do so that minimizes any potential harm? The answer pre-taproot was +> OP_RETURN. What is it now? +> +> -- Christopher Allen +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--0000000000003e96ad05f39f5a90 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"auto"><div>With OP_RETURN you publish some data that are immedi= +ately visible in the blockchain. I would consider this better (more straigh= +tforward) for things like time-stamping.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di= +r=3D"auto">With Taproot you need to spend the utxo to make the script visib= +le. This seems better when you don't want the data public but you need = +to be able to reveal the data when the time comes.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><= +br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Unless it is important to reveal later, it seems= + to me that for 80 bytes or less OP_RETURN is still the way to go post-tapr= +oot.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d= +iv dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 1 Feb 2023, 04:30 Christopher A= +llen via bitcoin-dev, <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= +on.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><bloc= +kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc= +c solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I don't have a concrete= + proposal in mind, I'm just trying to understand various tradeoffs in p= +ost-taproot bitcoin in more detail.</div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail= +_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:07 = +PM Peter Todd <<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank" r= +el=3D"noreferrer">pete@petertodd.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote cl= +ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px= +;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e= +x"><br> +>OP_FALSE<br> +>OP_IF<br> +>OP_PUSH my64bytes<br> +>OP_ENDIF<br> +<br> +What's wrong with OpPush <data> OpDrop?<br></blockquote><div><br>= +</div><div>I'm not sure pro or con of either. I just saw that proposal = +above recently.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= +le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:soli= +d;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Also, it is incorrec= +t to say that OpReturn outputs "clog UTXO space". The whole point= + of OpReturn is to standardize a way to keep such outputs out of the UTXO s= +et. There is the 75% discount to using witness space. But considering the s= +ize of a transaction as a whole using taproot instead of OpReturn doesn'= +;t save much.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are OP_RETURN trick= +s in production that do clog UTXO space. I was trying to avoid consideratio= +n of those by just saying to compare apples vs. apples, by presuming that a= +ny form of these transactions holding the 64 bytes is a spent transaction.<= +/div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0= +px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-colo= +r:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Finally, _64_ bytes is more than a mer= +e 32 byte commitment. What specific use case do you actually have in mind h= +ere? Are you actually publishing data, or simply committing to data? If the= + latter, you can use ECC commitments and have no extra space at all.<br></b= +lockquote><div><br></div><div>I chose 64 bytes for this exercise, as I know= + there are tricks hiding 32 bytes as keys. As almost every op_return live o= +ut there is >32 bytes, I wanted an example that could be a signature, tw= +o hashes, a hash plus some metadata, etc. I also considered 96 bytes (for i= +nstance a hash and a signature), but as that doesn't fit into OP_RETURN= +'s 80 bytes, that choice prohibits comparing the different approaches s= +ide-by-side.</div><div><br></div><div>To come back to my question another w= +ay, if you ignore the people who say "never put anything except data f= +acilitating coin transactions into the bitcoin blockchain", but if you= + also are not trying to use the bitcoin blockchain as a world database (ala= + ETH), what is the most pragmatic way to do so that minimizes any potential= + harm? The answer pre-taproot was OP_RETURN. What is it now?</div><div><br>= +</div><div>-- Christopher Allen</div></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" = +rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati= +on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div></div></div> + +--0000000000003e96ad05f39f5a90-- + |