MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACrqygAMsO1giYuxm=DZUqfeRjEqGM7msmEnZ-AHws3oA2=aqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca8622cb-445e-4258-bbac-b3ee1ce95f4c@protonmail.com>
 <57f780b1-f262-9394-036c-70084320e9cf@peersm.com>
 <CACrqygCNf3Gv8+VjhyqS4GTb3Epo8qXEKGtQB6sqyR6ib44-fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABE6yHtM2Dqc63_eURSr7dMirJti5sYnqvHj7vQ_Ab9FC_d04g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d00aacb-585d-f875-784d-34352860d725@peersm.com>
 <CACrqygB_FbsRGWYPSUEFTnP15y94Hmo4JtAuv6bH1D3YtbAw9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b292d887-cbd5-165c-de01-793df2b5e8f3@peersm.com>
 <CACrqygAv842ucN7PLYMENXFiSwAZJy2Y+FziJXrWjyCcOXmL3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <230265ee-c3f8-dff3-9192-f0c8dc4d913c@peersm.com>
 <CAMZUoKkAdQ9TSMm4vPJOrThu_h6VbqwPhOQQR7-Yr+WZ0DMBYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <76718304-A8E3-46E6-B2F7-DE86831F15DF@petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <76718304-A8E3-46E6-B2F7-DE86831F15DF@petertodd.org>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2023 13:12:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKnrs-uxnTqpa96B4H86=gAtafowDi0D5HdnExvBWqTqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, 
 "Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008226b305f3f7dd94"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE
 OP_IF OP_PUSH
Precedence: list

--0000000000008226b305f3f7dd94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat., Feb. 4, 2023, 21:01 Peter Todd, <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

>
>
> On February 5, 2023 1:11:35 AM GMT+01:00, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey,
> >there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper to
> >use witness data.  Where that crossover point is depends on the finer
> >details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some
> >reasonable assumptions.  Such a calculation could form the basis of a
> >reasonable OP_RETURN proposal.  I don't know if it would be persuasive,
> but
> >it would at least be coherent.
>
> I don't think it's worth the technical complexity trying to carefully
> argue a specific limit. Let users decide for themselves how they want to
> use OpReturn.
>

Even better.

>

--0000000000008226b305f3f7dd94
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat., Feb. 4, 2023, 21:01 Peter Todd, &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On February 5, 2023 1:11:35 AM GMT+01:00, Russell O&#39;Connor via bitcoin-=
dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br>
&gt;Since bytes in the witness are cheaper than bytes in the script pubkey,=
<br>
&gt;there is a crossover point in data size where it will simply be cheaper=
 to<br>
&gt;use witness data.=C2=A0 Where that crossover point is depends on the fi=
ner<br>
&gt;details of the overhead of the two methods, but you could make some<br>
&gt;reasonable assumptions.=C2=A0 Such a calculation could form the basis o=
f a<br>
&gt;reasonable OP_RETURN proposal.=C2=A0 I don&#39;t know if it would be pe=
rsuasive, but<br>
&gt;it would at least be coherent.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s worth the technical complexity trying to careful=
ly argue a specific limit. Let users decide for themselves how they want to=
 use OpReturn.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto">Even better.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--0000000000008226b305f3f7dd94--