Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A885DC0032 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD72610E5 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:29:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 7CD72610E5 Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=DZAg+78C X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 M56gu9Yda3-b for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2e]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E88610D7 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:29:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 23E88610D7 Received: by mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-570db728a48so489242eaf.1 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:29:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1692635342; x=1693240142; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=f5SJhYxoqW9LRBy3yyd2TfDHV7FAUr2jZrWV8puRYhE=; b=DZAg+78Cxv67QQ9bXtwcGyyXGae6QskMMU0dkpt2kZzY7xNvwtBQVbq14jfFCFFDns 61pHk29NrypOTpDMWXdN5BA8RtQ7w/9Nky6cdLYijwuYda7ku9rajzeCT0vk2txkeybt 86UpLuQ2rIsQHWgiJGhR12sRfQHlQmkbhSrjotQ7pPdRrgKYWcwtdlOYZ+L2EoS6Z30x p3EHz20oaIaHjQN627N8zJrWUqbp46pzixrxsb8qsiM8Tma0iVMGhOU0hPxNYSh7CuiE hT6BecwOY3BououfDdNU2ojgKd/dX3aS8gXX74XHdCitqM1Hju1JGcxPWUi3dtWF39V1 GyAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692635342; x=1693240142; h=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=f5SJhYxoqW9LRBy3yyd2TfDHV7FAUr2jZrWV8puRYhE=; b=jO28LZYorbSpL2Jxs4kM+4GUQdDg3aBo/ZXzkoFiE/tunrj7WZ5xdgjZRflCSIjtE/ naIeXFAKjNKij4o08+vzPfWD/+5M5pZrhr1rEgU7an/WwwuN0tmwrGoyN2ZSypsN8ICf aU1E4lZ0Ovqt7Az/kPxu/sDX/VEPGminR7gLTnLsq+liTyBMo9xGcDe6Iq3GRG8+LQcu LvrT0Kc135Dbwqe4RDh/EhX20r2gh926xu0nEm5nFxsQwz/J0Mz+4UDrAR46yxbTAYhJ AUjF7yhE1tSMXUG0rcuYqmOVyihvq06eAfnN/ddZ+/MQxmPMSKgS88tBSaZu3JHE/WaF POrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzeddg6UqN+4P1hCD+mhKb1iC75yrxk2NSASgIm5qVKt2OjNP3v fzjzu0DD2xZwQBhHjzFzHf06z9qD4kRvcUFX1xiLcZOTFg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGphvSKYg8Nne5+jvfeRNV+85zLUnapqKay4r1nYzOyRlhxqvs0PzdWzgS1pzzKMIngiGvjhJnnB9Zx9sFtsM0= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:d2c8:0:b0:56e:5a8e:654b with SMTP id j8-20020a4ad2c8000000b0056e5a8e654bmr5774080oos.3.1692635342121; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: John Tromp Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 18:28:50 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 22:08:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions" X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:29:04 -0000 > If we ban "arbitrary data", however you want to define it, then actors will > simply respond by encoding their data within sets of public keys. Public > key data is indistinguishable from random data, and, unless we are willing > to pad the blockchain with proof of knowledge of secret keys, there will be > no way to tell a priori whether a given public key is really a public key > or whether it is encoding an inscription or some other data. Note that in the Mimblewimble protocol, range proofs already prove knowledge of blinding factor in Pedersen commitments, and thus no additional padding is needed there to prevent the encoding of spam into cryptographic material. This makes pure MW blockchains the most inscription/spam resistant [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg61980991#msg61980991